McConkie on Peepstones

[_MrStakhanovite]

My guess is that Bruce mistook his confidence as some kind of spiritual validation. One of the trademarks of the Mormon armchair theologians on the other board who insist you take their musings as serious as anything written by an apostle 50 years ago.

[Maureen]

Aristotle, why would a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' give a flying f*** what non-apostles had to say?

My point was that McConkie didn't care what anyone had to say. This means that for the most part he also didn't care what other prophets and apostles had to say.

Nonsense...
BRK was the son in law of Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the church. Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F Smith the sixth president and great grandson to Hyrum Smith. Before Mormon Doctrine, BRK compiled the three volume set Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith. Mormon Doctrine was a modified/shorted version of the three volume set.

Everything BRK believed and wrote was an extension of these men and in complete harmony with Church teachings at the time. Mormon Doctrine was in print for 12 years (two editions) when BRK was called to be an apostle. Hardley the heretic you want to think.

[_Drifting]

I find Mormons, for the most part, disingenuous when it comes to McConkie.


Between 1946 and 1985 Bruce was revered as a General Authority and Apostle. His words were taken, by the membership and leadership alike, as doctrinal truths and the words of someone inspired by God.
At no point did any other Church leader between those years that Bruce served state anything that would allow the members to use any form of caution when listening to and reading what he said.
In fact, the leadership encouraged every member to have his book 'Mormon Doctrine' in their home as a reference guide.

Now he's dead, well suddenly he was talking non doctrinal personal opinions and Mormon Doctrine is classed as anti-Mormon heresy.

Two faced.

How many of today's leaders will be given this treatment when they are dead rather than their peers having the minerals to challenge it and warn the members whilst they are still alive?

[Guest]

I once read the whole book cover to cover as well. It was, after all, one of six books given to me as a gift right right after my confirmation.

It set me down the path of misogyny, racism, Lamanites, distrust for other religions and more. It also taught me that if I touched my dick for any other reason that to pee with, I was an absolute horrific, scarlet red sinner.

Today because he's dead, he is easily dismissed. Not doctrinal. Speaking as a man. Not canonized. He went against the wishes of the FP.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

[_Infymus]

BRK was the son in law of Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the church. Joseph Fielding Smith was the son of Joseph F Smith the sixth president and great grandson to Hyrum Smith. Before Mormon Doctrine, BRK compiled the three volume set Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, under Bookcraft, the Church owned printing company. Mormon Doctrine was a modified/shorted version of the three volume set and also published by Bookcraft.

Everything BRK believed and wrote was an extension of these men and in complete harmony with Church teachings at the time. Mormon Doctrine was in print for 12 years (two editions) when BRK was called to be an apostle. Hardley the heretic you want to think.

The DOS volumes 1, 2 and 3 were the other three books given to me at my confirmation. They won't sell them anymore so if you have your hands on them - keep them. They re-did them about 12-15 years ago into a watered down, totally lacking in any detail or information and now call it "Answers to Doctrine Questions" or something like that. I bought it hoping that it was a far more detailed version of the original three - with more gospel information. I was sorely disappointed, in fact, it was an outright slap in the face. It was a real cog dis moment for me seeing that they had blatantly removed vast sections and turned it into apologetic speak. The book was utterly worthless after that.

[_Yoda]

I find Mormons, for the most part, disingenuous when it comes to McConkie.


Between 1946 and 1985 Bruce was revered as a General Authority and Apostle. His words were taken, by the membership and leadership alike, as doctrinal truths and the words of someone inspired by God.
At no point did any other Church leader between those years that Bruce served state anything that would allow the members to use any form of caution when listening to and reading what he said.
In fact, the leadership encouraged every member to have his book 'Mormon Doctrine' in their home as a reference guide.

Now he's dead, well suddenly he was talking non doctrinal personal opinions and Mormon Doctrine is classed as anti-Mormon heresy.

Two faced.

How many of today's leaders will be given this treatment when they are dead rather than their peers having the minerals to challenge it and warn the members whilst they are still alive?

We have actually already seen this with President Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness". In the 80's, this book was mandatory reading for anyone who had a "confession-worthy" sin. It was housed in every bishop's office.

Now, it also bears the distinction of "non-doctrine", and Church leaders have definitively distanced themselves from it.

Comments like it is better for your daughter to fight to the death rather than be a surviving rape victim tend to go over like a lead balloon.

I always liked President Kimball, but as a teen-aged victim of sexual assault, this is something that never rang true to me.

[_Infymus]

We have actually already seen this with President Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness". In the 80's, this book was mandatory reading for anyone who had a "confession-worthy" sin. It was housed in every bishop's office.

Now, it also bears the distinction of "non-doctrine", and Church leaders have definitively distanced themselves from it.

Comments like it is better for your daughter to fight to the death rather than be a surviving rape victim tend to go over like a lead balloon.

I always liked President Kimball, but as a teen-aged victim of sexual assault, this is something that never rang true to me.

This is why I tossed this book in the trash when I resigned. I gave away to Mormon neighbors my entire collection of books - cases and cases of them. But this is one book of a few that I tossed in the garbage. I felt that nobody should be subject to this book.

[_DarkHelmet]

I find Mormons, for the most part, disingenuous when it comes to McConkie.


Between 1946 and 1985 Bruce was revered as a General Authority and Apostle. His words were taken, by the membership and leadership alike, as doctrinal truths and the words of someone inspired by God.
At no point did any other Church leader between those years that Bruce served state anything that would allow the members to use any form of caution when listening to and reading what he said.
In fact, the leadership encouraged every member to have his book 'Mormon Doctrine' in their home as a reference guide.

Now he's dead, well suddenly he was talking non doctrinal personal opinions and Mormon Doctrine is classed as anti-Mormon heresy.

Two faced.

How many of today's leaders will be given this treatment when they are dead rather than their peers having the minerals to challenge it and warn the members whilst they are still alive?

We have actually already seen this with President Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness". In the 80's, this book was mandatory reading for anyone who had a "confession-worthy" sin. It was housed in every bishop's office.

Now, it also bears the distinction of "non-doctrine", and Church leaders have definitively distanced themselves from it.

Comments like it is better for your daughter to fight to the death rather than be a surviving rape victim tend to go over like a lead balloon.

I always liked President Kimball, but as a teen-aged victim of sexual assault, this is something that never rang true to me.

My wife heard the fight to the death doctrine for the first time in the mid 90s. The bishop taught it in relief society in our young adult ward. She is TBM, but she was seriously pissed after that class. The following week the bishop returned to Relief Society to clarify the doctrine after receiving numerous complaints about it.

[_harmony]

My wife heard the fight to the death doctrine for the first time in the mid 90s. The bishop taught it in relief society in our young adult ward. She is TBM, but she was seriously pissed after that class. The following week the bishop returned to Relief Society to clarify the doctrine after receiving numerous complaints about it.

Did he clarify that it wasn't doctrine? It was simply the thoughts of a guy who wasn't in tune with the spirit at the time?

[_MsJack]

Between 1946 and 1985 Bruce was revered as a General Authority and Apostle. His words were taken, by the membership and leadership alike, as doctrinal truths and the words of someone inspired by God.
At no point did any other Church leader between those years that Bruce served state anything that would allow the members to use any form of caution when listening to and reading what he said.
In fact, the leadership encouraged every member to have his book 'Mormon Doctrine' in their home as a reference guide.

Now he's dead, well suddenly he was talking non doctrinal personal opinions and Mormon Doctrine is classed as anti-Mormon heresy.

My experience has been that Mormons are far more willing to disagree with and distance themselves from the words of deceased prophets, whereas living ones are always defended or have their words re-interpreted until they can be agreed with. It's not just a BRM thing.