30 years after his speech and 27 years after his death, Elder McConkie

[Vort]

has the all-time most-watched position (as well as the fourth-most-watched this month) on the BYU Speeches web site:

Speeches

Great speech, controversial at the time, and among some, still controversial. Well worth listening to.

[classylady]

Wow. Just read the speech. Wonderful. I can still hear Elder McConkie's voice in my mind as I was reading it. It doesn't seem like 27 years has gone by since his death. I love his testimony of the Father, the Savior, and the Holy Ghost. My prayer is that I might improve my testimony daily, that I might continue to develop my relationship with my Father, our Savior, and the Holy Ghost. Elder McConkie is a wonderful example.

Thank you, Vort for sharing this speech. I truly felt the Spirit while reading it.

[bytor2112]

Elder McConkie passed away about 6 months after I was baptized. I will always remember his last conference talk....it had a tremendous Spiritual impact on me. Perhaps that is why I have enjoyed reading his talks and his books over the years. I am three books into the Messiah Series.....

I find it troubling that He is often marginalized in favor of "modern" scholarship....as if the things of God can be known by scholarship. So many falsehoods exist about Mormon Doctrine and the controversies surrounding it. The truth is that the new edition had no doctrinal changes, only a softening in the tone and the removal of some topics. I would note that he was asked to publish the new edition by the First Presidency and was assisted in toning down some of the language down by Spencer Kimball. But, President Kimball is often marginalized now as well.

Elder McConkie was often called on by the First Presidency to address doctrinal concerns and because of his zeal to keep secularism out of the church, he often addressed issues like the talk Vort referenced. As he told his son once as he was preparing to deliver a talk at BYU, "tell them to heat up the tar, I'm coming to speak." :)

None the less his wonderful work can be found every time we open the scriptures and in the teaching manuals of the Church.

Edited August 2, 2012 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Elder McConkie : Preacher of Righteousness, from the June 1985 Ensign , two months after his passing.

[annewandering]

I am always astonished that he has become controversial. President Kimball as well. They were both very straight speaking men.

[Chubbs]

This is one of my favorite speeches from a lion in the gospel. I always look back at this speech to help define my relationship with God and the role of each member of the Godhead in that relationship.

Thanks for posting this, I think it is something that everyone should read through occasionally!

[Guest iodress]

very helpful…I preferred to thank you for this good article.

discount bridesmaid dresses|strapless Wedding Dresses

[rameumptom]

The reason why Elder McConkie was controversial is because he tried to push his personal beliefs as doctrine. He does to an extent in this speech, which he did as an attack on some things taught by some BYU professors.

There is no apostle nor prophet today telling us to avoid a relationship with Christ. In fact, the Book of Mormon and New Testament focus on our relating with Christ, as the way to get to the Father.

Elder McConkie was a great apostle. But he occasionally stepped over the bounds, and this is one area I think he did.

[bytor2112]

There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.

I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondency because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposes he should.

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence:

Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son.

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

And I rather suppose that he who sitteth upon the throne will choose his own ways to answer his children, and that they are numerous. Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; and it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by him whose ear is attuned to the needs of his children.

Sounds like he is referencing much of what is taught in many Christian faiths today. Why what he is teaching is controversial is unclear to me....if I were a Baptist, then maybe so, but as a Latter Day Saint it is not controversial.

I would note also that Elder McConkie says in the talk, "I shall express the view of the Brethren, of the prophets and apostles of old, and of all those who understand the scriptures and are in tune with the Holy Spirit. " I am guessing that the brethren of the time believed as Elder McConkie did, unless Elder McConkie is deceiving his audience by leading them to believe that they concurred. Doesn't sound like something an Apostle would do. Some of those brethren, are still among us I believe.

Edited August 2, 2012 by bytor2112

[Vort]

There is no apostle nor prophet today telling us to avoid a relationship with Christ.

Nor did Elder McConkie.

[annewandering]

it was becoming a 'thing' of some to pray to Our Mother in Heaven. While I admit the idea of talking to Her is appealing it is just not how we have been taught. She has her duties to attend to and while we do not know what they are, we can assume they are important. Does not mean we can arbitrarily change 'protocol' to suit our own opinions.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon rameumptom! I hope you are having a good day. :)

The reason why Elder McConkie was controversial is because he tried to push his personal beliefs as doctrine. He does to an extent in this speech, which he did as an attack on some things taught by some BYU professors.

There is no apostle nor prophet today telling us to avoid a relationship with Christ. In fact, the Book of Mormon and New Testament focus on our relating with Christ, as the way to get to the Father.

Elder McConkie was a great apostle. But he occasionally stepped over the bounds, and this is one area I think he did.

Although I can understand what it is that you are saying and I can even understand why you might feel the way that you do, at the end of the day I'm forced to concede the following fact:

I recognize and sustain Bruce R. McConkie as one who has been set apart by the laying on of hands by those having authority to be an apostle and one who has priesthood keys to teach, clarify, and expound the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not recognize or sustain you as one who has authority or priesthood keys to supersede the words of the Lord's anointed. Therefore, I must reject your words in this post and I would encourage anyone else to do the same.

Respectfully,

Finrock

[rameumptom]

Finrock, you are welcome to do as you wish. I also sustain Elder McConkie (or did) as an apostle during his lifetime. I sustained him to be a witness of Christ, hold keys of priesthood, etc. That said, only the Prophet has the right to establish what is doctrine, not an apostle. D&C actually states that.

That most of Elder McConkie taught, we still believe in the Church, shows that he was correct on most things. That he admitted he was wrong on the priesthood ban, is also part of the record, showing that he did step beyond the doctrine on some things (like saying blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millennium, or talking about the curse of Cain, etc). That the Church takes a different tack in regards to grace, salvation and exaltation than what Elder McConkie and church leaders of the early to mid 1900s taught, is easy to see.

The Church grows. We have living revelators that trump Elder McConkie, Brigham Young, and everyone else in the past.

For example, Elder Richard G Scott in Mar 2012 Ensign tells us:

"• While participating in temple ordinances, consider your relationship to Jesus Christ and His relationship to our Heavenly Father. This simple act will lead to greater understanding of the supernal nature of the temple ordinances.."

Here we have an apostle telling us to consider our relationship with Christ. Are we going to listen to a dead apostle over a living one?

As much as I love Elder McConkie, I do not place him on a pedestal. He memorized scripture, but sometimes did not understand it as well as modern prophets and apostles do.

So, Finrock, I'm going to follow a living apostle over the words of a dead one. I would encourage anyone else to do the same.

Edited August 4, 2012 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

BTW, this discussion sadly reminds me of an inside joke a stake president and Institute director I knew as a YSA used to have. When someone would quote a GA, the other would say, "has he been dead long enough?" Sadly, we hold onto the words of dead prophets and apostles more than the words of living ones. Yet, we are supposed to give heed to the living words first.

Elder McConkie has been dead for almost 30 years. He has been superseded on some teachings, people.

[Vort]

Here we have an apostle telling us to consider our relationship with Christ. Are we going to listen to a dead apostle over a living one?

Ram, you are wrong, and you must realize that. You are claiming that Elder McConkie told us not to consider our relationship with Christ. This is outright false. Period. Elder McConkie never said any such thing.

The fact is that nothing McConkie said on the topic of our relationship with Christ -- nothing -- is out of harmony with what Elder Scott or any other apostle has said since.

If you really believe that Elder McConkie taught that we should neglect or ignore our relationship with Jesus Christ, please just quote what he said.

[rameumptom]

I do not think I'm wrong in this. Elder McConkie stepped out farther than the prophet on many occasions. We've moved away from some of his statements. The Book of Mormon and Bible teach us to follow Christ and develop a relationship with him. I do not believe Elder McConkie had the right to speak so authoritatively on this, as I do not think he had the right to speak so authoritatively on the 7 Deadly Heresies. How many of you are going to give up a belief in evolution, simply because Elder McConkie called it a heresy? Should we ignore Talmage, Widtsoe and other apostles, simply because Elder McConkie had an opinion, and pushed it hard?

[Finrock]

Hi rameumptom!

You've inferred and then attributed concepts to my words that do not reflect what I actually wrote. Other than to clarify the misrepresentation of my words, I have nothing further to add to what I have already stated.

Because I do not recognize your authority to supersede the words of God's apostle does not mean that I "hold onto the words of dead prophets and apostles more than the words of living ones". Neither do I find any contradiction to what is taught today and what Elder McConkie taught in his talk.

I mean no offense, rameumptom.

Regards,

Finrock

[estradling75]

I'm not sure what the big hullbaloo is?

I read his talk... And it did talk about our relationship with Christ. But I didn't take from that, that he was saying 'Don't have one.' Which I think is crazy idea way to take it from what I read. I took from it don't exalt Christ over The Father, Don't Pray to Christ, but pray to the Father in his name, and don't neglect learning how to listen to the Holy Ghost. Basically I understood him to be saying we should not try to have one of the Godhead be more 'special' at the cost of the others. I don't see that as being in anyway out of line.

Yes we are to have a relationship with Christ, and it should develop at about the same pace as our relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit

[Vort]

I do not think I'm wrong in this. Elder McConkie stepped out farther than the prophet on many occasions. We've moved away from some of his statements. The Book of Mormon and Bible teach us to follow Christ and develop a relationship with him. I do not believe Elder McConkie had the right to speak so authoritatively on this, as I do not think he had the right to speak so authoritatively on the 7 Deadly Heresies. How many of you are going to give up a belief in evolution, simply because Elder McConkie called it a heresy? Should we ignore Talmage, Widtsoe and other apostles, simply because Elder McConkie had an opinion, and pushed it hard?

Again, Ram:

If you really believe that Elder McConkie taught that we should neglect or ignore our relationship with Jesus Christ, please just quote what he said.

[carlimac]

I liked Elder McConkie in many ways, but after the Blacks Priesthood thing I lost a bit of trust. I have to say that I agree with rameumptom. I respectfully disagree with Finrock in that simply because they are set apart as apostles doesn't mean they are infallible.

[Vort]

I have to say that I agree with rameumptom.

Then I offer you the same challenge I offered him:

If you really believe that Elder McConkie taught that we should neglect or ignore our relationship with Jesus Christ, please just quote what he said.

[carlimac]

Then I offer you the same challenge I offered him:

If you really believe that Elder McConkie taught that we should neglect or ignore our relationship with Jesus Christ, please just quote what he said.

I should have clarified. I agree with rameumptom specifically about how Elder McConkie seemed to overstep his bounds at times.

I don't agree that he was telling us to avoid any kind of relationship with Christ. But what does the word "special" mean in this statement? " Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus."

And then this part is pretty confusing, too. "We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator."

So what IS worship then if it isn't standing in awe and being reverentially grateful? He says we need to work out our salvation by worshipping only the Father. How? By keeping His commandments. That part I get. But I have a hard time thinking of keeping commandmants as being "worship". It's just something we do out of duty and respect. I think of true worship as that thing Elder McConkie said we do... that apparently isn't really worship- standing in awe and being reverentially grateful. That IS worship in my mind. And I feel that way about both the Father and the Son. If I'm kept out of the celestial kingdom for that...well, so be it I guess.

He says this: "These matters lie at the very foundation of revealed religion. In presenting them I am on my own ground and am at home with my subject. I shall not stoop to petty wranglings about semantics but shall stay with matters of substance. "

Whether he intended to or not, he did use a word that has different meanings (semantics) and is a very personal thing to every person. To bluntly say "We don't worship the Son"...I don't know. I think it was said for shock value. And unfortunately it's something that can be taken out of context and thrown back in our faces by other Christian religions. I just don't know how necessary it is to split hairs about the word "worship" when it comes to our eternal salvation.

Edited August 4, 2012 by carlimac

[qedd]

Then I offer you the same challenge I offered him:

If you really believe that Elder McConkie taught that we should neglect or ignore our relationship with Jesus Christ, please just quote what he said.

Towards the end of the speech, Elder McConkie said...

It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and him who has bought us with his blood.

Elder McConkie calls a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord improper. Which leads one to question, can one be respectful (i.e., "worshipful adoration") while having an intimate relationship? What is an intimate relationship? How do we become *one* if there is a requisite distance ("required reserve between us and him") placed between us?

If he meant the idolatrous relationship with the Lord called out earlier in his speech, then perhaps he should have stated that an excessive and idolatrous relationship with the Lord is improper, not simply a personal and intimate one.

It wouldn't be the first time that a church authority employed a poor choice of words -- and it wasn't the last. But I think it's his excessive boldness that rankles many within the church. For example:

Now, in spite of all these truths, which ought to be obvious to every spiritually enlightened person, heresies rear their ugly heads among us from time to time.

I shall summarize the true doctrine in this field and invite erring teachers and beguiled students to repent and believe the accepted gospel verities as I shall set them forth.

He assumes a single interpretation of scripture. And failing to interpret as he does is false doctrine, and leaves one without salvation.

There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine...

The following quote illustrates one perspective, or interpretation, that he holds, and seems to boldly assert with authoritative finality:

We know that God is the only supreme and independent Being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell and that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and, by the power of his Spirit, omnipresent.

Supremacy, independence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence... Semantics are important. Context is important. And personal interpretation is important. One of the beautiful things about LDS theology is that it is so open to personal interpretation. Concluding that there is but one interpretation denies spiritual growth and evolving perspectives. He seems to come from a very dogmatic school of LDS theology -- and I think this is partly why you'll find many that feel uneasy with his words.

[bytor2112]

So what IS worship then if it isn't standing in awe and being reverentially grateful? He says we need to work out our salvation by worshipping only the Father. How? By keeping His commandments. That part I get. But I have a hard time thinking of keeping commandmants as being "worship". It's just something we do out of duty and respect. I think of true worship as that thing Elder McConkie said we do... that apparently isn't really worship- standing in awe and being reverentially grateful. That IS worship in my mind. And I feel that way about both the Father and the Son. If I'm kept out of the celestial kingdom for that...well, so be it I guess.

That clearly isn't what Elder McConkie is saying. He states substantially the same thing in various talks and one would imagine that if he is was off his rocker, he would have been instructed by the brethren to either clarify or change his message. He notes that he is expressing the views of the brethren as well, I would think that if President Kimball disagreed he would have corrected him since Elder McConkie implies that he is expressing President Kimball's views as well.

Outside of the LDS world, people pray directly to Christ and not the Father, They pray to the Holy Ghost and in their prayers they seek to have a special, intimate relationship through this prayer and worship with Christ that reflects a great lack of understanding of the Gospel. Context means a lot and clearly, you and others are taking him out of context. If a new member or child were to begin a prayer with Dear Jesus and then spoke of his adoration for Jesus and detailed how he personally longed to return to his presence and then perhaps uttered the words, "thank you Holy Spirit"....some one would gently correct this person. If this type of theological waywardness was being taught, then Elder McConkie's words were directed to those teaching, practicing and purveying this incorrect understanding.

This is from a talk called Patterns of Prayer by Elder McConkie: Sounds pretty worshipful to me.

We thank thee for sending thy Holy Son Jesus to be the Savior and Redeemer; to put into full operation all of the terms and conditions of thy great and eternal plan of salvation; to save us from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment.

O how we glory in him and in his blessed name, rejoicing everlastingly that he has ransomed us from temporal and spiritual death; that he is the one Mediator between us and thee; that he has reconciled us unto thee, not imputing unto us our sins, but healing us with his stripes!

We thank thee, O our Father, that thou gavest thine Only Begotten Son so that we, believing in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life; that he, amid the blood and agonies of Gethsemane, and the blood and cruelties of Calvary, bore our sins on condition of repentance.

O how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood; and in whose blood we shall yet wash our garments, so as to stand spotless before him and thee in that great day!

Edited August 4, 2012 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

He memorized scripture, but sometimes did not understand it as well as modern prophets and apostles do.

He memorized scripture???? What a slap in the face...very insulting. Can you demonstrate with examples that Elder McConkie didn't understand the scriptures he "memorized" as well as Elder Bednar? Or Elder Cook? Can you provide a quote from any of the current Apostles, that demonstrate this?

I wold note, that God is no respecter of persons and the things of God are understood by the power of the Holy Spirit. I am sure that Elder McConkie sought the face of the Lord often and much was revealed to him. It is my personal belief that all of the Prophets and Apostles have a mission and are called for those specific purposes. Elder McConkie's mission was to drive secularist beliefs from the church and proclaim the Gospel boldly and clearly.