McConkie on Peepstones

[_Buffalo]

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

Why? It's not doctrine.

How does one get to be an apostle in the LDS church with such a woefully incorrect understanding of doctrine, as McConkie displayed?

[_Drifting]

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.

Exactly!

[_DarkHelmet]

How does one get to be an apostle in the LDS church with such a woefully incorrect understanding of doctrine, as McConkie displayed?

Being Joseph Fielding Smith's son in law can't hurt.

[_ludwigm]

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.

The endangered species are categorized as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable etc.
We could make the same "Conservation Status" for books, pamphlets and articles of eternal thruths.
The JofD is extinct, the Book of Abraham is critically endangered... the list were long.

I've used old LDS Infobase products (the first version run under DOS) - which have one more item in the PGP. as far as I know it was Gospel Doctrine or something similar.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

True, though there does seem to be a small group who try and reconcile everything any LDS prophet ever said to agree with current doctrine. The contortions required to do this are impressive.

[_sock puppet]

How does one get to be an apostle in the LDS church with such a woefully incorrect understanding of doctrine, as McConkie displayed?

Being Joseph Fielding Smith's son in law can't hurt.

I'm sure the defenders will claim that there is no nepotism in "the Church".

[_DarkHelmet]

I'm sure the defenders will claim that there is no nepotism in "the Church".

Of course not, that would look bad. But then again, there was nepotism in the Book of Mormon. Nephi became prophet after Lehi. Alma then Alma the younger, etc. In the Bible you had Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. Maybe nepotism is a sign of the one true church.

[_thews]

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

Why? It's not doctrine.

Ignorance is bliss... to some.

[_Tobin]

I just finished reading "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie.

Why? It's not doctrine.

How does one get to be an apostle in the LDS church with such a woefully incorrect understanding of doctrine, as McConkie displayed?

Here is how:
http://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

[_consiglieri]

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.

I read all these books about thirty years ago, too.

Although I could be wrong on this, I think Doctrines of Salvation and Answers to Gospel Questions are separate books and always have been.

If memory serves, Doctrines of Salvation was a three-volume collection and collation of sermon snippets by Joseph Fielding Smith arranged in different categories by his admiring son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie.

Answers to Gospel Questions was a collection of answers written by Joseph Fielding Smith to doctrinal questions submitted by members which were published in The Improvement Era over a number of years.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri