The only true church?

[_mikuu]

So if the church had McConkie remove incorrect teachings from the 2nd edition of Mormon Doctrine, why can't we conclude that they agreed with the other parts of the book that they didn't ask him to remove?

How do we know the church had him remove it?

if we do know the church had him remove it do we know why?

Back to my original post if the first presidency doesn't say it should the members being saying on the first Sunday of every month?

[_ldsfaqs]

I think your hearing is flawed.....

I've never heard any 70's or members saying the Church is "not the only True Church".
Maybe you are confusing something they are saying in another context?

The Church has always been diplomatic when it concerned other religions. We have always said other religions hold truths, do good, etc.
Quote Mining some .0001% negative statements from history is not what Mormonism says and does 99.9999% of the time concerning other religions.

Also, your statement about the "great whore" and "of the devil" is also false.
Mormonism has NEVER taught this. And the ones who did Orson Pratt and Bruce McConkie were corrected for it, because it is a false interpretation of the scripture. The Church for example had McConkie remove it from his 2nd edition of Mormon Doctrine.

You should learn that there is a difference between anti-mormon claims which bears false witness of Mormonism in almost every claim and what Mormonism actually is.

So if the church had McConkie remove incorrect teachings from the 2nd edition of Mormon Doctrine, why can't we conclude that they agreed with the other parts of the book that they didn't ask him to remove?

Have something specific in mind....?
The Church of the Devil issue is the only thing I can recall that was actually false or problematic.
There were I remember some other issues that he likely wasn't as clear or as accurate as he could have been, but he was a human, so not an issue to me.

You ever read most of McConkies works.....? I have, the guy despite his flaws was a genius and a great man. As smart and wise as I believe I am, I know I'm still flawed. So, what do you want?

[Guest]

How do we know the church had him remove it?

if we do know the church had him remove it do we know why?

Because it's not LDS Doctrine and never was. Orson Pratt was corrected when he taught it, as well as McConkie.
Yes, there is a brief story I've seen on it, but I don't have access to it.

The reason it was removed is because it's a perversion of the actual doctrine.
The actual doctrine states that it is a "spiritual" distinction, not an "actual Church".
I.E. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, etc.
The Lamb and the Devil can exist within the Church and outside the Church.

D&C 18:20 also makes clear the distinction.
It states, "contend against NO CHURCH save the Church of the Devil".
In other words, the scripture is not referring to any particular Church but to an ideology which can exist in any group or organization.

See here also:

http://LDS.org/scriptures/triple-index/ ... g&letter=c
http://LDS.org/scriptures/tg/devil-church-of?lang=eng
http://LDS.org/scriptures/gs/devil.the- ... l?lang=eng

Anti-mormonism can for example be considered of the Church of the devil because it "Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God."

Another point is the McConkie was a big scholar. In general Christian scholarship, it is a common theme to identify the Catholic Church as the Great Abominable Church and the Whore of the earth. This is where he got the idea, not from Mormonism.

Back to my original post if the first presidency doesn't say it should the members being saying on the first Sunday of every month?

I'm not in your ward, so I can't say what members are saying. I have a feeling that you're not interpreting what they are saying correctly. Of course, it's always possible there is some trend in your particular Ward, but I've attended some 30 different Wards over the years, and I've never seen what you are describing. I've seen something "similar" which is why I think you might be misinterpreting them, but again, I'm not there to judge one way or the other. I can only say I've never seen it, the 'exact' thing you are describing.

One other possibility is that you're not attending an "LDS Church"..... I.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.???

Most of the breakaway sects DO have a "relativistic" interpretation of things, and aren't as big in the "True Church" views.

[_aranyborju]

Have something specific in mind....?
The Church of the Devil issue is the only thing I can recall that was actually false or problematic.
There were I remember some other issues that he likely wasn't as clear or as accurate as he could have been, but he was a human, so not an issue to me.

You ever read most of McConkies works.....? I have, the guy despite his flaws was a genius and a great man. As smart and wise as I believe I am, I know I'm still flawed. So, what do you want?

Yes I have read McConkies works. As I recall, the first edition also stated that blacks would never get the priesthood, so that was problematic too.

My point is that if the first presidency took the time to read through the book and cull out things that they did not believe to be "Mormon Doctrine," then why can't we assume they they DID agree with the rest of the book, thereby making it a doctrinal work. If the president of the church was asking McConckie to make changes to avoid confusion as to what truly constituted doctrine, then why not ask him to change the title of his book? What could be more confusing to the lay member of the church and to non-members seeking to learn about the church, than to allow an Apostle to write a book called Mormon Doctrine, and then claim that it is not doctrinal.

[_Stormy Waters]

The Church of the Devil issue is the only thing I can recall that was actually false or problematic.
There were I remember some other issues that he likely wasn't as clear or as accurate as he could have been, but he was a human, so not an issue to me.

The first presidency was not as kind in their assessment.

We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements

[_ldsfaqs]

Yes I have read McConkies works. As I recall, the first edition also stated that blacks would never get the priesthood, so that was problematic too.

My point is that if the first presidency took the time to read through the book and cull out things that they did not believe to be "Mormon Doctrine," then why can't we assume they they DID agree with the rest of the book, thereby making it a doctrinal work. If the president of the church was asking McConckie to make changes to avoid confusion as to what truly constituted doctrine, then why not ask him to change the title of his book? What could be more confusing to the lay member of the church and to non-members seeking to learn about the church, than to allow an Apostle to write a book called Mormon Doctrine, and then claim that it is not doctrinal.

I doubt the First Presidency took the time to read the entire book. But if something came to their attention, I'm sure they addressed it, which in this particular issue and a couple of others that I remember they did.

In answer to your question is that that's not how the Church works.
Pauls letters to the Churches ALONE don't make "doctrine" of Christianity any more than McConkies book makes "official doctrine" of the Church. Paul had beliefs that weren't and still aren't doctrine of most any Christian group. Why should you assume a single modern Apostles works would be?

Official Doctrine has always been what the Church officially promotes as official doctrine.
It has never been every uttered opinion be it by an Apostle or not. The Church through the Priesthood and Apostleship has a "more SURE word of prophecy".... Not a "perfect word of prophecy". Apostles are still human.

Things people write or say are HELPMATES.... Not absolute. A book, even by an Apostle is an inspired helpmate. That doesn't mean every word in it is infallible. LDS don't even believe in infallible scripture.... Yet, you want a book by an Apostle that summarizes to the best of his ability LDS doctrine to be infallible???

[_ldsfaqs]

The Church of the Devil issue is the only thing I can recall that was actually false or problematic.
There were I remember some other issues that he likely wasn't as clear or as accurate as he could have been, but he was a human, so not an issue to me.

The first presidency was not as kind in their assessment.

We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements

Here is the full account..... Ultimately, they DID allow republishing with the Second Edition.

Publication restriction

Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect that:
"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[2]

McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960 at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the decision to not allow further publication of the book:
[McKay] then said: "Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors...are corrected." Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."[1]

When the First Presidency met with McConkie about their decision, he responded, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can."[1]

Second edition

In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie states that six years later:
"On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes. ... My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction."[3]

Other accounts of the meeting suggest that McConkie sought out permission and generously interpreted McKay's counsel:
…McConkie audaciously approached McKay six years later and pushed for publication of the book in a revised form… McKay, age ninety-two and in failing health, did not take the matter up with his counselors or the Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, he said that "should the book be re-published at this time," McConkie would be responsible for it and "that it will not be a Church publication." Three days after meeting with McKay, McConkie wrote in a memo to Clare Middlemiss, McKay's secretary, "President McKay indicated that the book should be republished at this time.[4]

The second edition of Mormon Doctrine, with its approved revisions, was published in 1966. Horne states, "The most obvious difference between the two editions is a more moderate tone."[1]
Another revision was made to the book in 1978 after Church President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation that the priesthood should be extended to all worthy male members.

[_Shulem]

Official Doctrine has always been what the Church officially promotes as official doctrine.

For an OFFICIAL example:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Pearl of Great Price

The Book of Abraham

Facsimile No. 3

"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

What is the name of the Egyptian king that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has pretended to proclaim to all the world through revelation of Joe Smith?

_________________________

Paul O

[Guest]

LEEUNIVERSE,

Come on, marine-boy, just give me the king's name that is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. Surely you can do that. How about you call Tommy-boy Monson at his Salt Lake palace home and ask him? Surely he can give you the name that was rolling off the tongue of Joe Smith the girl lover.

Defend your Mormon revelations! Come on. Be a man. Stop being a whimp.

Enter the name of the king in the line below:

_________________________

If you can't do that, you're just a whimp. A marine whimp.

Paul O

[_bcspace]

So if the church had McConkie remove incorrect teachings from the 2nd edition of Mormon Doctrine, why can't we conclude that they agreed with the other parts of the book that they didn't ask him to remove?

Doesn't matter. It's not published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine. Back in the day, the Church wanted something to publish and they thought it might be BRM's Mormon Doctrine, but after making many many corrections they still thought it contained too much personal opinion and declined to give it their blessing.