The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BRUCE R. MCCONKIE".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
BRUCE R. MCCONKIE
Total Articles:
6
Bruce R. (Redd) McConkie (1915-1985) Mormon Apostle from 1972 to 1985, famous for his book "Mormon Doctrine". A very racist man against blacks and minorities, and a man who passionately hated other churches, specifically the Catholic Church. In 1958 he wrote, "It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 130, 1958 edition).
|
|
In the book "Mormon Doctrine" a Mormon Apostle's explained common LDS doctrine concerning the Catholic Church:
"It
is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable
church. Nephi saw this 'church which is the most abominable above all other churches' in vision. He 'saw the devil that he
was the foundation of it' and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a
part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)"
- Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)
"Harlots. See
Church of the Devil, Sex Immorality.
Literally a harlot is a prostitute; figuratively it is any apostate church. Nephi,
speaking of harlots in the literal sense and while giving a prophetic description of the Catholic Church, recorded that he
'saw the devil that he was the foundation of it.' ... Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he designated the
Catholic Church as 'the mother of harlots' (1 Nephi 13:34; 14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the
harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches."
- Mormon
Doctrine, pp. 314-315 (1958)
The church Apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) took some heat for these paragraphs and under
pressure from those concerned about public relations to tone down the rhetoric for the Second Edition of "Mormon Doctrine."
In later teachings on the Great and Abominable Church, this church apostle was much more crafty. Here's how he explained
this doctrine years later in General Conference:
"The world today is full of people who draw near to the Lord with
their lips, but whose hearts are far from him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but
they deny the power thereof” JS—H 1:19."
"The same spiritual darkness covered the earth in the day when Jesus
ministered among men. Of those who would not hear his voice our Lord said:"
“Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy
of you, saying, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from
me. “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:7-9.)
True worshippers
worship the true God according to true principles. There is no salvation in worshipping a false god or in believing a false
doctrine. All such worship is in vain. It has no saving virtue or power.
- Bruce R. McConkie, “The Teacher’s Divine
Commission,” Ensign, Apr. 1979, Page 21
He doesn't single out any specific church, but don't you think the
holier-than-thou teaching is still there?
| Introduction: A Personal Meeting with Bruce R. McConkie—In Which He Blatantly Lied to Me
When I was a student at Brigham Young University in the 1970s, I decided to do a research paper on the official LDS position on organic evolution. Much of my effort to write an accurate account on the subject involved repeated, and often frustrating, attempts to solicit answers from the Mormon Church hierachy.
During my research, I personally met and spoke with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie.
An account of that meeting follows below, taken from personal notes I made of our discussion, which took place at McConkie's private residence, 260 Dorchester Drive, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday, 7 July 1980, from 5:45 to 7:30 p.m.
____
Ezra Taft Benson Arranges the Meeting
On the day of my conversation with McConkie, I had visited earlier, for approximately three-and-a-half hours, with my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, then-president of the Council of the Twelve, in his Salt Lake City apartment, located in the Bonneville Towers, 777 East South Temple.
During that discussion, my grandfather suggested that it might be good for me to speak directly with McConkie on this matter.
Still a true-believing Mormon at the time, I replied that I would consider it to be a great honor to meet a man whom I considered to be one of the greatest living scriptorians in the Church.
I added, however, that I did not want to be an imposition. My grandfather assured me that McConkie would be happy to speak with me, assuming that an appropriate time and place could be arranged.
I told my grandfather I would be available to meet with him anytime, anywhere, and would only want to take a few minutes of his time to clarify in my own mind some of the important questions that seemed (at least to me) to be in need of definitive answers regarding the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.
At this point (approximately 3:45 p.m.), as I looked on, my grandfather went over to the phone and made a personal call to McConkie, who was still in his Church office.
After chatting with McConkie for a few minutes, my grandfather hung up and informed me that the meeting had been arranged for 5:30 that same afternoon, at McConkie's home.
Once the initial excitement had subsided somewhat, I expressed concern to my grandfather that, in the upcoming question-and-answer session with McConkie, I did not want to appear to be lacking faith and testimony in McConkie's divine calling and apostleship.
In particular, I was somewhat anxious that my inquiries, although sincere, might be misinterpreted and prove offensive to McConkie, who was known for his forthright, umcompromising views--which views appeared to some to reflect a certain degree of sternness and even harshness, when "laying down the line" in areas of Mormon Church doctrine.
My grandfather reassured me that McConkie was "a very gracious man," with sons my own age (I was a 26-year-old BYU student at the time). He encouraged me to be as frank with McConkie in my questioning as I had been with him.
_____
Close Encounters of the Bruce Kind
By coincidence, I had already planned to meet my father in downtown Salt Lake City after my visit with my grandfather and be driven to my parents' residence, where I was staying during summer vacation.
When I slid into the front seat of my father's car at 5:15 that afternoon and informed him of the scheduled meeting with McConkie in 15 minutes, he was pleasantly surprised. He offered to take me to McConkie's home, which I hoped he would do, since I had no other means of getting there in the few minutes remaining before the scheduled appointment.
As we drove to McConkie's home, I told my father that while I was certainly not adverse to having him sit in on my conversation with McConkie, I regarded the visit as a unique one-on-one opportunity to ask McConkie whatever questions I felt were necessary to provide a clearer understanding of Mormon doctrinal matters.
My father said he understood and offered to drop me off at McConkie's home, then return to pick me up after our visit was concluded. I did not feel that was necessary and suggested that we "play it by ear."
If McConkie invited both of us into his home, as I expected he would, I felt I would not be inhibited, as long as my father honored my request to be able to interact freely with McConkie, without interruption--no matter how well-intentioned that interruption might be.
McConkie greeted us warmly at the door, presenting an image quite different from the Bruce the Concrete-Hearted that I, and millions of others, had come to expect from his stiff-as-a-board-for-the-Lord Conference talks.
He was dressed in an open-necked yellow sports shirt, slacks and house slippers. (And all this time I thought he had been born in a dark blue suit).
He turned to me, grinned and asked if there was anything I did not want my father to hear during our conversation.
I said no, whereupon McConkie ushered us into his comfortable, sun-lit living room. My father and I sat on a sofa, approximately ten feet across from McConkie, who seated himself in a chair next to a lampstand on which rested his scriptures and some other papers.
His demeanor was relaxed and served to help put me at ease. The atmosphere throughout our conversation was open and friendly. McConkie encouraged me, on more than one occasion during our discussion, not to hesitate in asking whatever I wanted.
In keeping with my previous request, my father sat and listened silently.
_____
McConkie Manipulates and Misleads on His Mormon Doctrine
During our discussion, which focused primarily on the subject of the Mormon Church’s official position on organic evolution, attention turned briefly to the Roman Catholic Church.
McConkie had asserted to me that while the Mormon Church, institutionally and as a matter of official doctrine, opposed organic evolution, the Church was not going to say so because McConkie, told me, it did not want to pick fights with its vulnerable members.
He explained, "It's a matter of temporizing, of not making a statement to prevent the driving out of the weak Saints. It's a question of wisdom, not of truth."
He compared it to calling the Catholic Church "the Church of the Devil." He said while such a statement was true, one had to be careful about saying it, so as not to offend Catholics.
I asked McConkie why, in fact, his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" had been removed from the 2nd edition of his book, Mormon Doctrine.
McConkie insisted to me that it was excised not because it was not doctrinally sound but because it was too difficult for people to accept.
In essence, McConkie’s explanation for his original reference (as it appeared in the 1958 first edition of Mormon Doctrine) to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" being expunged from in its subsequent 1966 re-publication was, he said, a matter of good manners and sensitivity--and had nothing to do with the theological truth of his claim.
At that point in my travels through Mormonism's maze of muck, I didn't know any better but to accept what McConkie told me as being factual.
The trouble was, McConkie’s smiling assertion turned out to be a bald-face lie.
It has been exposed as such by the emergence of documents which were generated at the highest levels of the Mormon Church during the swirl of controversy that erupted when Mormon Doctrine was first published.
____
McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine Was Never Accepted By the LDS Church President As Official Mormon Dogma
Faithful Mormons often cite McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine as an authoritative volume on official LDS doctrine.
However, its initial publication was not only unauthorized, but met by then-President David O. McKay and other General Authorities with both surprise and objection.
In the wake of its unapproved appearance, McKay directed that a review be made of the book’s contents and a report submitted to him, along with recommendations on how to deal with it problematic publication.
_____
A Confidential, Top-Level Analysis of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine Concluded That It Was Full of Misinformation, Insults and Unauthoritative Claims
An analysis of McConkie’s book was subsequently conducted by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Petersen, wherein they noted the book’s numerous doctrinal errors, objectionable language, discourteous tone and questionable claims.
Recommendation was made that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine not be republished, that it be repudiated and that in the future no book be published by any of the Brethren without first obtaining First Presidency approval.
McKay agreed with the suggestion that Mormon Doctrine not be republished and directed that restrictions be placed on future independent book publishing by the General Authorities.
The First Presidency also issued a private, face-to-face reprimand to McConkie, whereupon McConkie promised to behave.
Below are documents which include McKay’s officially-directed report on the book’s contents (authored by Apostle Romney), as well as excerpts from McKay’s contemporary office journal on the controversy surrounding the book and the resolution of the problems its publication had created for McKay and the Church.
(These documents were originally copied with permission of the LDS Church Archivist. The original Romney letter and its attached copy of the Mormon Doctrine manuscript are in the First Presidency’s Office. Reproductions of those copies are in my possession and—as are so many other damning evidences against the Mormon Church—now available on the Internet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruce_R._McConkie
Also cited below are letters authorized by McKay which were sent out to inquiring Church members after publication of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, declaring that it and other books published by individual General Authorities did not represent the official position of the LDS Church.
(Copies of these letters are also in my possession, as well as available via the so-called "Mormon underground").
_____
Report from Marion G. Romney to David O. McKay
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Council of the Twelve
47 E. South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
January 28, 1959 . . .
Dear President McKay:
This is my report on MORMON DOCTRINE, by Bruce R. McConkie, which on January 5, you asked me to read.
The book is a 776 page work which, in the words of the author, purports to be, ‘the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom . . . . . the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.’
‘For the work itself,’ the author assumes the ‘sole and full responsibility.’ (Exhibit I) (The exhibits cited in this report consist of printed pages from the book. The statements in point are underscored in red.)
Preparation of the volume has entailed much study and research. Its favorable reception evidences a felt need for such a treatise.
The author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to the authorities on most any gospel subject.
As to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on ‘Mormon Doctrine.’ Had the work been authoritatively supervised, some of the following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified. [emphasis added]
A. Reference to churches and other groups who do not accept ‘Mormon Doctrine’.
1. ‘Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ who sometimes refer to themselves as ‘Josephites’. (Exhibit II-1, pages 50, 141, 362)
2. ‘Christian Churches’ generally. (Exhibit II-2, pages 139, 455)
3. ‘Catholic Church’. (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, 66, 69, 129, 130, 216, 241, 314-15, 342, 346, 350, 422, 499, 511, 697) [emphasis added]
4. Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 26-7, 131) [emphasis added]
5. Evolution and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, 180, 228, 238, 659)
B. Declaration as to ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on controversial issues.
1. ‘Pre-Adamites’. (Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)
2. Status of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2, pages 36, 234-35)
3. Meaning of the various accounts of Creation. (exhibit III_3, pages 157-8, 167-8)
4. Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 203)
5. Moses a translated being. (Exhibit III_5, pages 206, 445, 466, 727-8)
6. Origin of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)
7. Defiling the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)
8. Manner in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)
9. Written sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)
10. Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694)
C. Miscellaneous Interpretations (Exhibit IV)
Frequency of Administrations, page 22
Baptism in the ‘molten sea,’ page 98
II Peter 1:19, page 102
Paul married, page 112
Status of those ‘with Christ in His Resurrection', page 128
Consecration of oil, page 147
Councils and schools among the Gods, page 151
Limitations on Deity, page 154
Sunday not a proper day for family reunions, page 254
Geological changes at time of the deluge, page 268
The Holy Ghost a spirit man, page 329
Facing east in temples when giving the Hosanna Shout, page 337
Details on family prayer and asking the blessing on food, page 526
Women to be gods, page 551
Interpretations of the Doctrine and Covenants 93:1, page 581
Interpretation of "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning," page 606
Status of little children in the celestial kingdom, page 607
Resumption of schools of the prophets, page 613
Time of beginning of seasons, page 616
Interpretation of III Nephi 12:20, page 618
D. Repeated use of the word ‘apostate’ and related terms in a way which to many seems discourteous and to others gives offense. (Exhibit V, pages 123, 125, 160, 169, 212, 223, 383, 538, 546, 548, 596)
Faithfully and Respectfully submitted,
[Signed]
Marion G. Romney
Enc.
P. S.
As per my letter to you of January 9, I have promised to contact Marvin Wallin, manager of Bookcraft Company, by the 9th of February about the 4,000 volume edition of MORMON DOCTRINE which he is holding.
I shall therefore seek to contact you about the matter near the end of next week.
Sincerely,
M. G. R.
_____
Officie Journal of President David O. McKay
THURSDAY, January 7, 1960
10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book—‘Mormon Doctrine’
The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.
These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.
I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve.
It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.
Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine." [emphasis added]
_____
FRIDAY, January 8, 1960
11:55 to 12:15 p.m.
The First Presidency held a meeting. We 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.
We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency. (see January 7, 1960) [emphasis added]
WEDNESDAY, January 27, 1960
3:00 P. M. Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’
At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel.
I 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 (some 1,067) are corrected.’
Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, ‘That is the best thing to do. [emphasis added]
I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the [one line of words partially cut off on bottom of the photocopied page of journal] . . . to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that.’ I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that also.’
I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise. [emphasis added]
_____
THURSDAY, January 28, 1960
8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkie’s Book
Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Brother McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should not be republished, and said he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning.
When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to h is book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, ‘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.’ In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect. . . . [emphasis added]
10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.
At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have [sic] give it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it not be recognized as an authoritative book.
I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and a addendum given emphasizing the [bottom line of photocopied page of journal cut off] . . . it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it.
I reported that the First Presidency had talked to Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the book nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question had been raised as contained in the book.
The Brethren unanimously approved of this.
I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, ‘I only am responsible for it,’ but I said ‘you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed.’ I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion, this became the consensus of the Council. [emphasis added]
_____
Letters from McKay to Mormon Church Members Regarding McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine and Other Books Published by Individual General Authorities
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 E. South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
David O. McKay, President
February 3, 1959
Dr. A. Kent Christensen
Department of Anatomy
Cornell University Medical College
1300 York Avenue
New York 21, New York
Dear Brother Christensen:
I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church’s position on the subject of evolution.
The Church has issued not official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.
Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church. . . . [emphasis added]
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
David O. McKay
(President)
_____
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
David O. McKay
September 24, 1964
Dr. Lorenzo Lisonbee, Science Consultant
Phoenix Union High School System
District Adminstration Annex
2042 West Thomas Road
Phoenix, Arizona (85015)
Dear Dr. Lisonbee :
President McKay, who is recuperating at home under doctors’ orders from his recent illness, has asked me to acknowledge for him your letter of September 8, 1964.
I have been directed to say that individual General Authorities of the Church publish books on their own responsibility, the publishing of which is not regarded as Church approval of the books. The Church approves only books which have been authorized for publication by the General Authorities of the Church, such as the Standard Works of the Church and authorized textbooks adopted by official action of the Church for the Priesthood and the organizations fo the Church. [emphasis added]
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Clare Middlemiss
Secretary to:
President David O. McKay
_____
Conclusion: Bruce R. McConkie, A Special Witness for Deceitfulness
McConkie never told me about any of this, the liar.
Then again, maybe he just forgot.
| Joseph Mcconkie, Son Of Bruce R. Mcconkie, Continues In His Father's Legacy Of Hoodwinking Mormons About The Book "Mormon Doctrine"
Article Archived: Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006, at 07:53 AM
Stored Under Topic: BRUCE R. MCCONKIE
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | TOP | |
Joseph McConkie, Son of Bruce R. McConkie, Claims That David O. McKay Gave His Father the Green Light to Republish Mormon Doctrine
Joseph McConkie, son of Bruce R. McConkie, claims that President David O. McKay authorized the re-publication of his father's highly controversial, unauthorized and error-ridden Mormon Doctrine (in a reworked, second edition form, which appeared in 1966), although it is a matter of record that McKay was so distressed when McConkie first published the book in 1958 without permission from the Church that McKay ordered it not be republished.
Joseph McConkie's assertions in this regard appeared in the form of responses to questions posed to him by the Mormon-friendly Meridian Magazine:
"Question: Is it true that President David O. McKay banned the book [Mormon Doctrine]?
Response: In January 1960, President McKay asked Elder McConkie not to have the book reprinted.
Question: How is it, then, that the book was reissued?
Response: 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 was assigned to be Elder McConkie's mentor in making those changes.
Question: Is this generally known?
Response: I don't think so. I don?t know how people would be expected to know this.
Question: Haven't you heard people say that Bruce McConkie had the book reprinted contrary to the direction of the First Presidency?
Response: Yes, but if they would think about it, that assertion does not make much sense. It could also be noted that Mormon Doctrine was reissued in 1966, and its author was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972.
It takes a pretty good imagination to suppose that a man who flagrantly ignored the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be called to fill a vacancy in that body.
Bruce McConkie would have died a thousand deaths before he would have disregarded the prophet?s counsel or that of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Question: How do you know President McKay directed your father to reprint Mormon Doctrine?
Response: 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.
Question: Did the first edition of Mormon Doctrine cause embarrassment to President McKay?
Response: Yes. The Catholic bishop in Salt Lake City, Bishop Hunt, communicated to President McKay his displeasure with the book and what it said about the Catholic church.
Question: So, at least originally, the First Presidency had concerns about Mormon Doctrine?
Response: Yes. One of those concerns was the title itself. There was some question about what business a Seventy had declaring the doctrine of the [Mormon] Church. It is interesting to note, however, that no suggestion was ever made that the title of the book be changed.
Question: Would it be fair to say that the First Presidency gave your father a good horsewhipping for some of the things he wrote in Mormon Doctrine?
Response: I think their concern was not as much with what he had written as that he had done it without seeking counsel and direction from those who presided over him. This was back in a day before the Brethren did much writing, and there was no established review system for what they did write.
As to their giving him 'a good horse whipping,' I think we can be confident that they were not shy in voicing their feelings. I have been told that when he met with the First Presidency, my father was invited to be seated but chose to remain standing. I also know that it was his practice (because he told me I was to do the same) when you are getting scolded, you offer no excuses--you just take it.
After the experience President Moyle observed, 'I've never seen a man in the Church in my experience that took our criticism--and it was more than criticism--but he took it better than anyone I ever saw. When we were through and Bruce left us, I had a great feeling of love and appreciation for a man who could take it without any alibis, without any excuses, and said he appreciated what we said to him.'"
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2519
******
In Certain Critical Respects, Not All of Joseph McConkie's Assertions Agree with What His Father Personally Told Me
The claims made by Joseph McConkie about the controversy surrounding the publication of his father's book, Mormon Doctrine, contradict in some key ways what his father directly told me in a personal, face-to-face meeting I had with him in 1980, the contents of which are revisited below:
A Personal Meeting with Bruce R. McConkie—In Which He Blatantly Lied to Me
When I was a student at Brigham Young University in the 1970s, I decided to do a research paper on the official LDS position on organic evolution. Much of my effort to write an accurate account on the subject involved repeated, and often frustrating, attempts to solicit answers from the Mormon Church hierachy.
During my research, I personally met and spoke with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in a visit I had with him at McConkie's private residence, 260 Dorchester Drive, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday, 7 July 1980, from 5:45 to 7:30 p.m.
____
Ezra Taft Benson Arranges the Meeting
On the day of my conversation with McConkie, I had visited earlier, for approximately three-and-a-half hours, with my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, then-president of the Council of the Twelve, in his Salt Lake City apartment, located in the Bonneville Towers, 777 East South Temple.
During that discussion, my grandfather suggested that it might be good for me to speak directly with McConkie on this matter.
Still a true-believing Mormon at the time, I replied that I would consider it to be a great honor to meet a man whom I considered to be one of the greatest living scriptorians in the Church.
I added, however, that I did not want to be an imposition. My grandfather assured me that McConkie would be happy to speak with me, assuming that an appropriate time and place could be arranged.
I told my grandfather I would be available to meet with him anytime, anywhere, and would only want to take a few minutes of his time to clarify in my own mind some of the important questions that seemed (at least to me) to be in need of definitive answers regarding the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.
At this point (approximately 3:45 p.m.), as I looked on, my grandfather went over to the phone and made a personal call to McConkie, who was still in his Church office.
After chatting with McConkie for a few minutes, my grandfather hung up and informed me that the meeting had been arranged for 5:30 that same afternoon, at McConkie's home.
Once the initial excitement had subsided somewhat, I expressed concern to my grandfather that, in the upcoming question-and-answer session with McConkie, I did not want to appear to be lacking faith and testimony in McConkie's divine calling and apostleship.
In particular, I was somewhat anxious that my inquiries, although sincere, might be misinterpreted and prove offensive to McConkie, who was known for his forthright, umcompromising views--which views appeared to some to reflect a certain degree of sternness and even harshness, when "laying down the line" in areas of Mormon Church doctrine.
My grandfather reassured me that McConkie was "a very gracious man," with sons my own age (I was a 26-year-old BYU student at the time). He encouraged me to be as frank with McConkie in my questioning as I had been with him.
_____
Close Encounters of the Bruce Kind
By coincidence, I had already planned to meet my father in downtown Salt Lake City after my visit with my grandfather and be driven to my parents' residence, where I was staying during summer vacation.
When I slid into the front seat of my father's car at 5:15 that afternoon and informed him of the scheduled meeting with McConkie in 15 minutes, he was pleasantly surprised. He offered to take me to McConkie's home, which I hoped he would do, since I had no other means of getting there in the few minutes remaining before the scheduled appointment.
As we drove to McConkie's home, I told my father that while I was certainly not adverse to having him sit in on my conversation with McConkie, I regarded the visit as a unique one-on-one opportunity to ask McConkie whatever questions I felt were necessary to provide a clearer understanding of Mormon doctrinal matters.
My father said he understood and offered to drop me off at McConkie's home, then return to pick me up after our visit was concluded. I did not feel that was necessary and suggested that we "play it by ear."
If McConkie invited both of us into his home, as I expected he would, I felt I would not be inhibited, as long as my father honored my request to be able to interact freely with McConkie, without interruption--no matter how well-intentioned that interruption might be.
McConkie greeted us warmly at the door, presenting an image quite different from the Bruce the Concrete-Hearted that I, and millions of others, had come to expect from his stiff-as-a-board-for-the-Lord Conference talks.
He was dressed in an open-necked yellow sports shirt, slacks and house slippers. (And all this time I thought he had been born in a dark blue suit).
He turned to me, grinned and asked if there was anything I did not want my father to hear during our conversation.
I said no, whereupon McConkie ushered us into his comfortable, sun-lit living room. My father and I sat on a sofa, approximately ten feet across from McConkie, who seated himself in a chair next to a lampstand on which rested his scriptures and some other papers.
His demeanor was relaxed and served to help put me at ease. The atmosphere throughout our conversation was open and friendly. McConkie encouraged me, on more than one occasion during our discussion, not to hesitate in asking whatever I wanted.
In keeping with my previous request, my father sat and listened silently.
_____
McConkie Manipulates and Misleads on His Mormon Doctrine
During our discussion, which focused primarily on the subject of the Mormon Church’s official position on organic evolution, attention turned briefly to the Roman Catholic Church.
McConkie had asserted to me that while the Mormon Church, institutionally and as a matter of official doctrine, opposed organic evolution, the Church was not going to say so because McConkie, told me, it did not want to pick fights with its vulnerable members.
He explained, "It's a matter of temporizing, of not making a statement to prevent the driving out of the weak Saints. It's a question of wisdom, not of truth."
He compared it to calling the Catholic Church "the Church of the Devil." He said while such a statement was true, one had to be careful about saying it, so as not to offend Catholics.
I asked McConkie why, in fact, his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" had been removed from the 2nd edition of his book, Mormon Doctrine.
McConkie insisted to me that it was excised not because it was not doctrinally sound but because it was too difficult for people to accept.
In essence, McConkie’s explanation for his original reference (as it appeared in the 1958 first edition of Mormon Doctrine) to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" being expunged from in its subsequent 1966 re-publication was, he said, a matter of good manners and sensitivity--and had nothing to do with the theological truth of his claim.
At that point in my travels through Mormonism's maze of muck, I didn't know any better but to accept what McConkie told me as being factual.
The trouble was, McConkie’s smiling assertion turned out to be a bald-face lie.
It has been exposed as such by the emergence of documents which were generated at the highest levels of the Mormon Church during the swirl of controversy that erupted when Mormon Doctrine was first published.
____
McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine Was Never Accepted By the LDS Church President As Official Mormon Dogma
Faithful Mormons often cite McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine as an authoritative volume on official LDS doctrine.
However, its initial publication was not only unauthorized, but met by then-President David O. McKay and other General Authorities with both surprise and objection.
In the wake of its unapproved appearance, McKay directed that a review be made of the book’s contents and a report submitted to him, along with recommendations on how to deal with it problematic publication.
_____
A Confidential, Top-Level Analysis of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine Concluded That It Was Full of Misinformation, Insults and Unauthoritative Claims
An analysis of McConkie’s book was subsequently conducted by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Petersen, wherein they noted the book’s numerous doctrinal errors, objectionable language, discourteous tone and questionable claims.
Recommendation was made that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine not be republished, that it be repudiated and that in the future no book be published by any of the Brethren without first obtaining First Presidency approval.
McKay agreed with the suggestion that Mormon Doctrine not be republished and directed that restrictions be placed on future independent book publishing by the General Authorities.
The First Presidency also issued a private, face-to-face reprimand to McConkie, whereupon McConkie promised to behave.
Below are documents which include McKay’s officially-directed report on the book’s contents (authored by Apostle Romney), as well as excerpts from McKay’s contemporary office journal on the controversy surrounding the book and the resolution of the problems its publication had created for McKay and the Church.
(These documents were originally copied with permission of the LDS Church Archivist. The original Romney letter and its attached copy of the Mormon Doctrine manuscript are in the First Presidency’s Office. Reproductions of those copies are in my possession and—as are so many other damning evidences against the Mormon Church—now available on the Internet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruce_R._McConkie
_____
Also cited below are letters authorized by McKay which were sent out to inquiring Church members after publication of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, declaring that it and other books published by individual General Authorities did not represent the official position of the LDS Church.
(Copies of these letters are also in my possession, as well as available via the so-called "Mormon underground").
_____
Report from Marion G. Romney to David O. McKay
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Council of the Twelve
47 E. South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
January 28, 1959 . . .
Dear President McKay:
This is my report on MORMON DOCTRINE, by Bruce R. McConkie, which on January 5, you asked me to read.
The book is a 776 page work which, in the words of the author, purports to be, ‘the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom . . . . . the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.’
‘For the work itself,’ the author assumes the ‘sole and full responsibility.’ (Exhibit I) (The exhibits cited in this report consist of printed pages from the book. The statements in point are underscored in red.)
Preparation of the volume has entailed much study and research. Its favorable reception evidences a felt need for such a treatise.
The author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to the authorities on most any gospel subject.
As to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on ‘Mormon Doctrine.’ Had the work been authoritatively supervised, some of the following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified. [emphasis added]
A. Reference to churches and other groups who do not accept ‘Mormon Doctrine’.
1. ‘Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ who sometimes refer to themselves as ‘Josephites’. (Exhibit II-1, pages 50, 141, 362)
2. ‘Christian Churches’ generally. (Exhibit II-2, pages 139, 455)
3. ‘Catholic Church’. (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, 66, 69, 129, 130, 216, 241, 314-15, 342, 346, 350, 422, 499, 511, 697) [emphasis added]
4. Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 26-7, 131) [emphasis added]
5. Evolution and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, 180, 228, 238, 659)
B. Declaration as to ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on controversial issues.
1. ‘Pre-Adamites’. (Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)
2. Status of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2, pages 36, 234-35)
3. Meaning of the various accounts of Creation. (exhibit III_3, pages 157-8, 167-8)
4. Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 203)
5. Moses a translated being. (Exhibit III_5, pages 206, 445, 466, 727-8)
6. Origin of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)
7. Defiling the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)
8. Manner in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)
9. Written sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)
10. Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694)
C. Miscellaneous Interpretations (Exhibit IV)
Frequency of Administrations, page 22
Baptism in the ‘molten sea,’ page 98
II Peter 1:19, page 102
Paul married, page 112
Status of those ‘with Christ in His Resurrection', page 128
Consecration of oil, page 147
Councils and schools among the Gods, page 151
Limitations on Deity, page 154
Sunday not a proper day for family reunions, page 254
Geological changes at time of the deluge, page 268
The Holy Ghost a spirit man, page 329
Facing east in temples when giving the Hosanna Shout, page 337
Details on family prayer and asking the blessing on food, page 526
Women to be gods, page 551
Interpretations of the Doctrine and Covenants 93:1, page 581
Interpretation of "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning," page 606
Status of little children in the celestial kingdom, page 607
Resumption of schools of the prophets, page 613
Time of beginning of seasons, page 616
Interpretation of III Nephi 12:20, page 618
D. Repeated use of the word ‘apostate’ and related terms in a way which to many seems discourteous and to others gives offense. (Exhibit V, pages 123, 125, 160, 169, 212, 223, 383, 538, 546, 548, 596)
Faithfully and Respectfully submitted,
[Signed]
Marion G. Romney
Enc.
P. S.
As per my letter to you of January 9, I have promised to contact Marvin Wallin, manager of Bookcraft Company, by the 9th of February about the 4,000 volume edition of MORMON DOCTRINE which he is holding.
I shall therefore seek to contact you about the matter near the end of next week.
Sincerely,
M. G. R."
_____
Office Journal of President David O. McKay
"THURSDAY, January 7, 1960
10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book—‘Mormon Doctrine’
The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.
These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.
I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve.
It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.
Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine."
_____
"FRIDAY, January 8, 1960
11:55 to 12:15 p.m.
The First Presidency held a meeting. We 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.
We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency. (see January 7, 1960)."
_____
"WEDNESDAY, January 27, 1960
3:00 P. M. Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’
At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel.
I 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 (some 1,067) are corrected.’
Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, ‘That is the best thing to do.
I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the [one line of words partially cut off on bottom of the photocopied page of journal] . . . to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that.’ I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that also.’
I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise."
_____
"THURSDAY, January 28, 1960
8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkie’s Book
Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Brother McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should not be republished, and said he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning.
When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to his book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, ‘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.’ In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect. . . .
10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.
At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have [sic] give it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it not be recognized as an authoritative book.
I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and a addendum given emphasizing the [bottom line of photocopied page of journal cut off] . . . it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it.
I reported that the First Presidency had talked to Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the book nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question had been raised as contained in the book.
The Brethren unanimously approved of this.
I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, ‘I only am responsible for it,’ but I said ‘you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed.’ I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion, this became the consensus of the Council."
_____
Letters from McKay to Mormon Church Members Regarding McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine and Other Books Published by Individual General Authorities
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 E. South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
David O. McKay, President
February 3, 1959
Dr. A. Kent Christensen
Department of Anatomy
Cornell University Medical College
1300 York Avenue
New York 21, New York
Dear Brother Christensen:
I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church’s position on the subject of evolution.
The Church has issued not official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.
Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church. . . .
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
David O. McKay
(President)"
_____
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
David O. McKay
September 24, 1964
Dr. Lorenzo Lisonbee, Science Consultant
Phoenix Union High School System
District Adminstration Annex
2042 West Thomas Road
Phoenix, Arizona (85015)
Dear Dr. Lisonbee:
President McKay, who is recuperating at home under doctors’ orders from his recent illness, has asked me to acknowledge for him your letter of September 8, 1964.
I have been directed to say that individual General Authorities of the Church publish books on their own responsibility, the publishing of which is not regarded as Church approval of the books. The Church approves only books which have been authorized for publication by the General Authorities of the Church, such as the Standard Works of the Church and authorized textbooks adopted by official action of the Church for the Priesthood and the organizations fo the Church.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Clare Middlemiss
Secretary to:
President David O. McKay"
_____
Bruce R. and Joseph McConkie: A Father-Son Tag Team for Deception
Bruce R. McConkie never told me about any of this, the liar.
Then again, maybe he just forgot.
And perhaps his son, Joseph McConkie, has been a bit fuzzy in the memory department, as well.
| McConkie Talk Warning Against Developing A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ
Article Archived: Wednesday, Jul 26, 2006, at 07:57 AM
Stored Under Topic: BRUCE R. MCCONKIE
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Merry Prankster | TOP | |
The thread on what constitutes scripture reminded me of McConkie's infamous 1982 "Our Relationship With the Lord" BYU devotional talk. See this link.
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader...
As my comments below show, you never really know what is MoDoctrine because the so-called general authorities contradict one another.
McConkie's purpose of expounding upon this topic seems to have been to publicly "correct" and "humiliate" LDS author and BYU religion professor George Pace for having recently published a book which encouraged people to 'center their lives in Christ and...develop their own personal relationship with Him.'
McConkie started his public lynching of Pace by saying:
"I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all members of the Godhead and do so in plainness and simplicity so that none need misunderstand or be led astray by other voices."
He then stated that members of the Mormon Church "should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ." He maintained that Mormons had "... never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve...advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ."
The irony of all this is:
1. Within days of this talk, Deseret Books pulbished a book by McConkie's fellow apostle James E. Faust that included -- you guessed it -- a chapter devoted to developing a personal relationship with the Savior.
2. The missionary discussions at that time included an entire discussion on developing a personal relationship with the Savior. McConkie was on the missionary committee that presumably approved of the discussions.
I guess all of this goes to show that Mormon Doctrine is whatever the dude with the biggest balls or the largest "dick" wants it to be.
| BRUCE R. McCONKIE'S TESTIMONY: DID HE REALLY HAVE ONE?
In a previous post, “Makurosu” speculated that Bruce R. McConkie died without a personal testimony of the Mormon
gospel that he peddled and pontificated about for all his years as an authoritarian defender of the Cult:
“Ironically, I don't think he had a testimony when he died.
"Look at his ‘last testimony’:
http://www.zionsbest.com/lasttalk.htm...
“Not once does he mention Joseph Smith or anything else specific to Mormonism other than a brief, unnecessary reference to the Nephites. It's all Jesus Jesus Jesus, and he's holding on so tightly to that belief that it makes me wonder if his belief in Mormonism has been shaken up--perhaps after his exchange with BYU Professor Eugene England?
"I could be wrong, but that's how it appears to me.”
THE BURNING IN BRUCE'S BOSOM: FIRED UP OVER HIS OWN AMAZING ABILITY
Bruce R. McConkie died with a burning testimony on his lips, but it wasn't one of the Mormon Church--or even of Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
From personally meeting with him where he laid down the law from his own Mount Sinai, it is obvious to me that when push came to prophet, McConkie was willing to push aside the prophet and proclaim himself the source of all knowledge necessary for salvation.
Of that, he had an undying testimony--of Bruce, Bruce, Bruce.
Not only did he testify regarding own doctrinal perfection in matters where he was at odds even with Mormon Church presidents, he even plagiarized from non-Mormons when declaring his unassailable truths.
Based on my own interaction with him, McConkie ultimately came across as a man who had a testimony of his own perceived personal power and not a testimony of the Mormon doctrinal principle that the LDS Church was led by a living prophet.
That meeting, as recounted here from personal notes I made of our discussion, took place at McConkie's private residence, 260 Dorchester Drive, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday, 7 July 1980, from 5:45 to 7:30 p.m.
THE DEADLIEST OF HERESIES: NOT FOLLOWING McCONKIE ON MONKEYS
On the day of, and prior to, my conversation with McConkie, I had visited for approximately three-and-a-half hours, with my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, then-president of the Council of the Twelve, in his Salt Lake City apartment, located in the Bonneville Towers, 777 East South Temple.
We talked, among other things, about the Mormon Church’s official position on organic evolution.
My interest in the subject became increasingly heightened back in the late 1970s, I was a student at Brigham Young University, where I decided to do a research paper on the official LDS position on organic evolution. Much of my effort to write an accurate account on the subject involved repeated, and often frustrating, attempts to solicit answers from the Mormon Church hierachy.
During that preliminary conversation with my grandfather in his apartment, our conversation turned to my evolution research project.
We talked about McConkie's recent 14-stake fireside address, entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies," which he had delivered five weeks earlier, on 1 June 1980, in Brigham Young University's Marriott Center.
In his sermon, McConkie listed as "Heresy Two" the "false and devilish" notion advanced by "those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized."
Such claims, McConkie told his student audience, did not represent "true science" but, rather, "the false religions of the dark ages . . . some of which have crept in among us."
Moreover, while McConkie noted that "true religion and true science bear the same witness," he declared that the theory of organic evolution could "in no way" be harmonized "with the truths of science as they have now been discovered."
To believe otherwise, McConkie said, ran completely counter to "the saving doctrine" of revealed religion. That doctrine, he said, included "that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the fall and, in the case of man, from the spiritual death also, and that this includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life. Try as you may, you cannot harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms overastronomiclaly long periods of time."
As proof that "the theories of men"--i.e., the theories of organic evolution--were out of harmony with "the inspired word", McConkie cited 2 Nephi 2:22-26, which he quoted in full:
"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
"And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall."
To believe, he said, that "the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom" can somehow be accomdoated by revealed religion denied the very atonement of Christ, which McConkie called "the great and eternal foundaiton upon which revealed religion rests."
According to McConkie, belief in organic evolution rendered the doctrine of the atonement ineffectual for the following reasons:
"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."
MEETING McCONKIE: THE MAN, THE MOUTH, THE MESSIAH
I asked my grandfather if McConkie's address represented the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.
In so inquiring, I mentioned to him that my father, Mark A. Benson (Ezra Taft's second son) was seriously considering writing President Spencer W. Kimball to ask the same question.
In response, my grandfather lowered his head, smiled slightly and replied in careful and measured tones that he did not want to say too much, for fear that he "might slip."
He did, however, tell me that prior to its delivery at BYU, McConkie's address had been reviewed by "the Brethren." He said that McConkie himself had offered to make any changes in the prepared text, but that none were requested.
Nonetheless, my grandfather twice noted that "it was understood that the talk represented the views of Elder McConkie."
At this point in our conversation, my grandfather suggested that it might be good for me to speak directly with McConkie on this matter.
Still a true-believing Mormon at the time, I replied that I would consider it to be a great honor to meet a man whom I considered to be one of the greatest living scriptorians in the Church.
I added, however, that I did not want to be an imposition. My grandfather assured me that McConkie would be happy to speak with me, assuming that an appropriate time and place could be arranged.
I told my grandfather I would be available to meet with him anytime, anywhere, and would only want to take a few minutes of his time to clarify in my own mind some of the important questions that seemed (at least to me) to be in need of definitive answers regarding the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.
At this point (approximately 3:45 p.m.), as I looked on, my grandfather went over to the phone and made a personal call to McConkie, who was still in his Church office.
After chatting with McConkie for a few minutes, my grandfather hung up and informed me that the meeting had been arranged for 5:30 that same afternoon, at McConkie's home.
Once the initial excitement had subsided somewhat, I expressed concern to my grandfather that, in the upcoming question-and-answer session with McConkie, I did not want to appear to be lacking faith and testimony in McConkie's divine calling and apostleship.
In particular, I was somewhat anxious that my inquiries, although sincere, might be misinterpreted and prove offensive to McConkie, who was known for his forthright, umcompromising views--which views appeared to some to reflect a certain degree of sternness and even harshness, when "laying down the line" in areas of Mormon Church doctrine.
My grandfather reassured me that McConkie was "a very gracious man," with sons my own age (I was a 26-year-old BYU student at the time). He encouraged me to be as frank with McConkie in my questioning as I had been with him.
By coincidence, I had already planned to meet my father in downtown Salt Lake City after my visit with my grandfather and be driven to my parents' residence, where I was staying during summer vacation.
When I slid into the front seat of my father's car at 5:15 that afternoon and informed him of the scheduled meeting with McConkie in 15 minutes, he was pleasantly surprised. He offered to take me to McConkie's home, which I hoped he would do, since I had no other means of getting there in the few minutes remaining before the scheduled appointment.
As we drove to McConkie's home, I told my father that while I was not adverse to having him sit in on my conversation with McConkie, I regarded the visit as a unique one-on-one opportunity to ask McConkie whatever questions I felt were necessary to provide a clearer understanding of Mormon doctrinal matters.
My father said he understood and offered to drop me off at McConkie's home, then return to pick me up after our visit was concluded. I did not feel that was necessary and suggested that we "play it by ear."
If McConkie invited both of us into his home, as I expected he would, I felt I would not be inhibited, as long as my father honored my request to be able to interact freely with McConkie, without interruption--no matter how well-intentioned that interruption might be.
McConkie greeted us warmly at the door, presenting (initially, at least) an image quite different from the Bruce the Concrete-Hearted that I, and millions of others, had come to expect from his stiff-as-a-board-for-the-Lord Conference talks.
He was dressed in an open-necked yellow sports shirt, slacks and house slippers. (And all this time I thought he had been born in a dark blue suit).
He turned to me, grinned and asked if there was anything I did not want my father to hear during our conversation.
I said no, at which point McConkie ushered us into his comfortable, sun-lit living room. My father and I sat on a sofa, approximately ten feet across from McConkie, who seated himself in a chair next to a lampstand on which rested his scriptures and some other papers.
His demeanor was relaxed and helped put me at ease. The atmosphere throughout our conversation was open and friendly. McConkie encouraged me, on more than one occasion during our discussion, not to hesitate in asking whatever I wanted.
In keeping with my previous request, my father sat and listened without speaking.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BRUCE: THE MORMONS AREN'T YET READY FOR TRUTH-TRASHING THE CATHOLICS
One wonders how much of a true testimony of the Mormon gospel McConkie truly possessed, given how he then demonstrated to me to be less than above-board in his presentation to me of actual Mormon doctrine.
My meeting with him was characterized by McConkie's continual attempts to manipulate, mislead about and reconstruct Mormon doctrine, in order to bring it into line with his own doctrine.
During our discussion, which focused primarily on the subject of the Mormon Church’s official position on organic evolution, attention turned briefly to the Roman Catholic Church.
McConkie had asserted to me that while the Mormon Church, institutionally and as a matter of official doctrine, opposed organic evolution, the Church was not going to say so because McConkie, told me, it did not want to pick fights with its vulnerable members.
He explained, "It's a matter of temporizing, of not making a statement to prevent the driving out of the weak Saints. It's a question of wisdom, not of truth."
He compared it to calling the Catholic Church "the Church of the Devil." He said while such a statement was true, one had to be careful about saying it, so as not to offend Catholics.
I asked McConkie why, in fact, his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" had been removed from the second edition of his book, “Mormon Doctrine.”
McConkie insisted to me that it was excised not because it was not doctrinally sound but because it was too difficult for people to accept.
That was an untruthful testimony as to actual matters of fact.
But it was McConkie's testimony as to his own assessment of his doctrinal infallibility.
My meeting, in other words, with McConkie was really a testimony meeting conducted by McConkie in which he testified to his own truthfulness.
In essence, McConkie’s explanation for his original reference (as it appeared in the 1958 first edition of “Mormon Doctrine”) to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" being expunged from in its subsequent 1966 re-publication was, he said, a matter of good manners and sensitivity--and had nothing to do with the theological truth of his claim.
At that point in my early travels through Mormonism's maze of unfolding muck, I didn't know any better but to accept what McConkie told me as being factual.
THE REAL REASONS FOR PULLING THE PLUG ON McCONKIE'S "MORMON DOCTRINE"
The trouble was, McConkie’s smiling assertion turned out to be substantially removed from the truth—and the truth that he, himself, knew.
His dishonesty on this point has been convincingly exposed by the emergence of documents which were generated at the highest levels of the Mormon Church during the swirl of controversy that erupted when “Mormon Doctrine” was first published.
Faithful Mormons often cite McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” as an authoritative volume on official LDS doctrine.
The historical record on that matter, however, clearly shows that McConkie’s "Mormon Doctrine" was never cccepted by the LDS Church as official Mormon dogma.
Indeed, its initial publication was not only unauthorized, but met by then-President David O. McKay and other General Authorities with both surprise and objection.
In the wake of its unapproved appearance, McKay directed that a review be made of the book’s contents and a report submitted to him, along with recommendations on how to deal with it problematic publication.
In that ensuing examination, a confidential, top-level analysis of McConkie's book concluded that it was full of misinformation, insults and unauthoritative/unauthoritative claims.
That review of McConkie’s book was undertaken on orders of Church president McKay by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Petersen.
The report's conclusion: the book contained numerous examples of doctrinal errors, objectionable language, discourteous tone and questionable claims.
Recommendation was subsequently made that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” not be republished, that it be repudiated and that in the future no book be published by any of the Brethren without first obtaining First Presidency approval.
McKay agreed with the suggestion that McConkie's book not be republished and directed that restrictions be placed on future independent book publishing by the General Authorities.
The First Presidency also issued a private, face-to-face reprimand to McConkie, whereupon McConkie promised (apparently with less than full purpose of heart) to behave.
What follows below are documents that show what actually happened with regard to McConkie’s book—details of which are completely at odds with what he personally told me.
These exhibits include McKay’s officially-directed report on the book’s contents (authored by Apostle Romney), as well as excerpts from McKay’s contemporary office journal on the controversy surrounding the book and the resolution of the problems its publication had created for McKay and the Church.
(These documents were originally copied with permission of the LDS Church Archivist. The original Romney letter and its attached copy of the Mormon Doctrine manuscript are in the First Presidency’s Office. Reproductions of those copies are in my possession and—as are so many other damning evidences against the Mormon Church—now available on the Internet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bru...
Also provided below are letters authorized by McKay which were sent out to inquiring Church members after publication of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, declaring that it and other books published by individual General Authorities did not represent the official position of the LDS Church.
(Copies of these letters are also in my possession, as well as available via the so-called "Mormon underground").
The Report from Marion G. Romney to David O. McKay
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Council of the Twelve
47 E. South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
“January 28, 1959 . . .
“Dear President McKay:
“This is my report on MORMON DOCTRINE, by Bruce R. McConkie, which on January 5, you asked me to read.
“The book is a 776 page work which, in the words of the author, purports to be, ‘the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom . . . . . the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.’
“‘For the work itself,’ the author assumes the ‘sole and full responsibility.’ (Exhibit I) (The exhibits cited in this report consist of printed pages from the book. The statements in point are underscored in red.)
“Preparation of the volume has entailed much study and research. Its favorable reception evidences a felt need for such a treatise.
“The author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to the authorities on most any gospel subject.
“As to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on ‘Mormon Doctrine.’ Had the work been authoritatively supervised, some of the following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified.
“A. Reference to churches and other groups who do not accept ‘Mormon Doctrine’.
“1. ‘Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ who sometimes refer to themselves as ‘Josephites’. (Exhibit II-1, pages 50, 141, 362)
“2. ‘Christian Churches’ generally. (Exhibit II-2, pages 139, 455)
“3. ‘Catholic Church’. (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, 66, 69, 129, 130, 216, 241, 314-15, 342, 346, 350, 422, 499, 511, 697) [emphasis added]
“4. Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 26-7, 131) [emphasis added]
“5. Evolution and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, 180, 228, 238, 659)
“B. Declaration as to ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on controversial issues.
“1. ‘Pre-Adamites’. (Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)
“2. Status of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2, pages 36, 234-35)
“3. Meaning of the various accounts of Creation. (exhibit III_3, pages 157-8, 167-8)
“4. Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 203)
“5. Moses a translated being. (Exhibit III_5, pages 206, 445, 466, 727-8)
“6. Origin of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)
“7. Defiling the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)
“8. Manner in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)
“9. Written sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)
“10. Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694)
“C. Miscellaneous Interpretations (Exhibit IV)
“Frequency of Administrations, page 22
“Baptism in the ‘molten sea | |