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

[AnthonyB]

Interesting read, clearly a man with strong convictions. However he misinterpreted what non-LDS Christians believe about God, I shall presume it was due to his viewing things from an LDS perspective and not his being mendacious. There are enough threads about the differences between LDS and non-LDS on these forums that I don't want to add another. However I have seen quotes from that speech quoted by LDS as if they actually are a truthfull respresentation of what others believe and they are clearly not.

[bytor2112]

Here is an excerpt from someone who knew Brother Pace and spoke with him and Elder McConkie about the talk:

Elder McConkie was just checking a trend that was getting out of hand in that students were moving towards a charismatic movement. I saw it with my own eyes the worship like devotion some of Brother Pace's students felt. I didn't get overly heated about it because I like different styles of preaching. Don't get me wrong George did a lot of good for many students and helped them gain or strengthen their testimonies, I just felt myself it was a bit over the top like Protestant charismatic movements. On my mission I saw a couple members join a Catholic prayer group that spoke in tongues. Some of his students told me some interesting things. In principle I liked that he excited them but sometimes people get carried away. Mormons are a bit staid compared to the churches I saw in places like Houston Texas where men like Joel Olsteen preach. George at the time was a big draw and McConkie was just humbling him a little.

I believe George Pace realized how out of hand some of his students were at the time and so he apologized. He took it pretty hard. I think it is sad that McConkie didn't have a private talk with him but having approached McConkie he didn't see it as an attack on an individual so much as an attack on a philosophical difference. I know George Pace talked with Joseph Fielding McConkie at the time who worked with him so I'm would be surprised if he didn't passed on George Pace's concerns. Having taught for a couple of years at BYU-Hawaii I experience to a minor degree the almost reverential feeling students have for you. Every word you say is considered by them to be like scripture. You get caught up even if your intention is to just help them be more spiritual in a kind of movement. You really crave speaking in those student stakes every month and seeing the students' eyes light up and realizing the connection you are making. It is a real rush. It can be intoxicating to have that much influence.

[Misshalfway]

Here is an excerpt from someone who knew Brother Pace and spoke with him and Elder McConkie about the talk:

There's always a story underneath the story.

[Suzie]

I testify that it is no light thing to say that an apostle is leading the church astray.

I know you said it's your last post but I am just curious. Did anyone say that in this thread?

I choose to reject the words of rameumptom over rejecting the words of God's apostle and I encourage everyone, everywhere, to heed the words of God's apostles and seek to understand them rather than to heed the words of those who would presume to know a better gospel or a better doctrine or who might be encouraging us to not believe the words of an apostle.

IMO, I don't think Ram was requiring or expecting anyone to "accept" his words, so accepting or rejecting what he said isn't even relevant to the point. He shared his opinion just like you did on this post.

[carlimac]

Where I Stand

Here is where I stand. You might agree with me, you might not agree with me, or you might be uncertain. I'm primarily addressing those who agree with me and those who might be uncertain. Those who disagree with me on this point already know where they stand and they have made their choice and I don't presume to be able to change their minds.

My personal history has shown me that the more I write, the more I confuse others. I try to write less. To keep it simple, straightforward, and to the point. This post will be an exception and it will likely cause more questions and more confusion than it will provide any clarification. However, there is always the hope that it will strike a chord with the right someone, somewhere. If nothing else it will be a testimony as to where I stand.

When it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether I am online or speaking to someone face to face, I am not debating or conversing with others to stroke my ego, or to practice my linguistic skills, or to demonstrate my knowledge of the gospel, or to score rhetorical points, or anything like that. I'm not here to be popular. I have no hidden agenda and I have no desire to hurt or harm anyone in any way. To be clear, I am making no implications about others. I'm simply clarifying where I stand.

To understand where I stand it is important to understand that the issue here for me is not so much whether Elder McConkie's words are true or not. I know that they are true. I do not intend to get in to a debate about whether Elder McConkie spoke the truth in his speech. That issue is settled for me. As far as I'm concerned, there is no controversy. I am under no obligation, and I feel no obligation, to prove Elder McConkie's words. This isn't about Elder McConkie the person, but Elder McConkie an apostle. I am not defending my favorite apostle. I really have no favorite apostle. In fine, this is more about the office of an apostle and what it means to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that we are here on this earth solely because Heavenly Father designed a plan for us. We have no other real purpose. Heavenly Father's plan encompasses all truth and everything that is of significance, that is important, and that is good. Anything that is contrary to God's plan must be rejected because it is nonsensical. God has given us everything and without him we truly are "less than the dust of the earth". Amongst other things, God appointed leaders who have been given priesthood authority and priesthood keys to direct the affairs of God on this earth. These we sometimes call the Lord's anointed. The members of the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve are all apostles and they are all the Lord's anointed. They have been given the keys of the ministry and the keys to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is their duty to teach, to expound, to correct, and to clarify the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When anyone, but particularly when members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, takes upon themselves the mantle to publicly correct the apostles, they are usurping authority that they do not have and they are placing themselves in jeopardy. But, not only that, they may also become a stumbling block to others in the gospel or those who are investigating it. It is not our place to say that an apostle taught incorrect doctrine or that they "crossed the line" particularly when there is nothing to suggest that the apostles words have been superseded by those who have the authority to do so. To me it is presumptuous, it is disrespectful, and it is tinged with pride. I offer my view as a counter to what can only be described as blasphemy. An apostle can and has been superseded, but only by those who have the keys and authority to do so. No one on this internet forum has those keys and I testify against anyone who would either implicitly or explicitly presume to take upon themselves that office.

It just seems that sometimes people are too quick to reject the words of an apostle if it doesn't fit their personal understanding of the gospel or the doctrine, and they do so as if it is of no consequence. It sometimes seems that people believe that we can pick and choose which apostle we'll believe and when. I testify that it is no light thing to say that an apostle is leading the church astray. We ought to exercise great caution and extreme care in these matters. These are grave and serious issues. Who and what we choose to believe has eternal consequences. I testify that we ought to defer to the words of the apostles rather than to our own private interpretations, especially when our private interpretations are contrary to the words of an apostle. But, even if we feel we have some special knowledge, it is wholly inappropriate for a member of God's church to publicly teach and encourage their personal views. It is even more inappropriate to do so by encouraging other members to reject the words of God's apostle. It creates a clear line: Accept my personal interpretation or accept the words of God's apostle. In this thread, the choice for me is clear. I choose to reject the words of rameumptom over rejecting the words of God's apostle and I encourage everyone, everywhere, to heed the words of God's apostles and seek to understand them rather than to heed the words of those who would presume to know a better gospel or a better doctrine or who might be encouraging us to not believe the words of an apostle.

The warning that God has given us on this matter is clear:

"14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall (D&C 1:14-16)"

This is my last post on this thread simply because I do not have anything more that I can add. If you agree with me, if you disagree with me, or if you still don't know for sure where you stand, I will always respect your agency.

Regards,

Finrock

Your faith is admirable. But I think you're taking some of our statements more seriously than you need to. And perhaps you're fearing that what some of us are saying is blasphemous. And it feels as if you're calling us to repentance. Thanks for your concern.

Here is a quote from Elder Angel Abrea from a 2000 General Conference address that highlights how I feel about these kinds of things:

I’m sure that many questions have come to your mind. The truth is that you will not be condemned for wondering or questioning if you make a sincere effort to find the answer. Our mental powers have been given to us to use. Faith based on personal prayer, study, and obedience is more lasting than blind faith; it is more rewarding, and for sure it is better grounded.

I have sincere questions about Elder McConkie's talk as well as some others he's given. I am making a sincere effort to find the answers. If I feel he overstepped his bounds at times or spoke in a way that was confusing, it's my personal opinion. I believe he was an apostle of the Lord. I believe he spoke truth (except in one specific case that I can think of- and now we know that at that time he was conveying his own opinion rather than absolute truth.) I don't think it's blasphemous to point that out. It is what it is. It doesn't shake my faith that things didn't pan out as he said they would. I recognize that even apostles are imperfect human beings and can make mistakes. Knowing that makes it even more important for me to open my heart and mind to the spirit to recognize for myself the truth when I hear it and to sort out the slipups of human communication that can change the whole meaning of something, intentionally or un.

Edited August 6, 2012 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

What path of destruction are you talking about? What was so bad about it? I never read it but one of my companions did and she was an amazing and powerful missionary.

Carlimac, in my mission it was an essential part of a truly toxic culture. It was a culture that denied the free will of the convert - I repeatedly saw missionaries accused (by APs, no less) of "sinning" because they hadn't met their weekly baptism goal (after all, you and God had a "covenant" for x number of baptisms, so if you didn't get that number, you clearly weren't keeping your end of the bargain). It was was a culture that taught you that you had a right to have your converts be baptized, and as a result I saw plenty of investigators browbeaten into doing things they couldn't understand. I saw a DL ram one of my invesitigators through a baptism interview and pass off on the ordinance - only afterwards telling me that he'd seen my guy falling-over drunk at a local bar the night before. I saw the mission office openly discourage service - even projects with minimal time input that could have had immeasurable benefit to the communities where we were - merely because the service was not calculated to provide an immediate influx of new concerts. Ministers of the Gospel? We were salesmen, and in my mind von Harrison's book provided the theological cover to pass our egotistical commercialism off as spiritual zeal and to attack the faith and work ethic of anyone who dared not to play along.

I saw the results firsthand, and "destruction" is not too strong of a word. I got to spend nine months in a little town on the Amazon River that had a five - five - percent activity rate. The "power" of von Harrison's "amazing" texhniquea had given us eleven hundred members of record, seventy active members to try to reactivate them all, and three missionaries who figured reactivation was a member problem that was beneath their notice.

I'm probably being too harsh on von Harrison, and there's certainly enough blame to go around. Nevertheless, the catalyst for change in our mission was when Elder Scott sent a letter warning us to stop using the "covenant" system espoused by von Harrison. How different things could have been if that warning had come a decade earlier . . .

Edited August 6, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

Carlimac, in my mission it was an essential part of a truly toxic culture. It was a culture that denied the free will of the convert - I repeatedly saw missionaries accused (by APs, no less) of "sinning" because they hadn't met their weekly baptism goal (after all, you and God had a "covenant" for x number of baptisms, so if you didn't get that number, you clearly weren't keeping your end of the bargain). It was was a culture that taught you that you had a right to have your converts be baptized, and as a result I saw plenty of investigators browbeaten into doing things they couldn't understand. I saw a DL ram one of my invesitigators through a baptism interview and pass off on the ordinance - only afterwards telling me that he'd seen my guy falling-over drunk at a local bar the night before. I saw the mission office openly discourage service - even projects with minimal time input that could have had immeasurable benefit to the communities where we were - merely because the service was not calculated to provide an immediate influx of new concerts. Ministers of the Gospel? We were salesmen, and in my mind von Harrison's book provided the theological cover to pass our egotistical commercialism off as spiritual zeal and to attack the faith and work ethic of anyone who dared not to play along.

I saw the results firsthand, and "destruction" is not too strong of a word. I got to spend nine months in a little town on the Amazon River that had a five - five - percent activity rate. The "power" of von Harrison's "amazing" texhniquea had given us eleven hundred members of record, seventy active members to try to reactivate them all, and three missionaries who figured reactivation was a member problem that was beneath their notice.

I'm probably being too harsh on von Harrison, and there's certainly enough blame to go around. Nevertheless, the catalyst for change in our mission was when Elder Scott sent a letter warning us to stop using the "covenant" system espoused by von Harrison. How different things could have been if that warning had come a decade earlier . . .

Ok, I understand. I was a welfare missionary and spent some time trying to "find" some of the many who had been baptized in Argentina but who'd never been back. Some didn't even know they were members. Most of them were in areas of extreme poverty. But I don't necessarily attribute it all to that book. I don't know what the cause was. Perhaps it was simply the charisma of the missionaries and the idea some of those poor people had that they would be saved from their poverty by getting baptized. Anyway, I remember being told by the ZLs not to go back to some of those areas because it was just too dangerous for us. The elders were instructed to avoid those areas, too.

[Vort]

As someone who served his mission in the path of destruction left by Grant von Harrison's abominable Drawing on the Powers of Heaven

I remember seeing this book seemingly everywhere, but I never read it. Why did you think it abominable?

[Vort]

I saw the results firsthand, and "destruction" is not too strong of a word. I got to spend nine months in a little town on the Amazon River that had a five - five - percent activity rate. The "power" of von Harrison's "amazing" texhniquea had given us eleven hundred members of record, seventy active members to try to reactivate them all, and three missionaries who figured reactivation was a member problem that was beneath their notice.

I'm so blessed to have served in Italy, where there may not have been eleven hundred members of record throughout the entire mission and where the idea of "covenanting" to have even a single baptism every month would have been laughed at by almost everyone, missionary and member alike. :)

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I have read through the posts. I have also read the talk. Elder McConkie taught the truth and I know it's true.

[Guest bigbenarmy]

- Skills acquisition

The game will have more than 200 skill challenges await players, Current knowledge, the players do not need all the skills challenge may also have a sufficient number of points to learn all the skills, you just need to pick you want to challenge those on it, of course you can also choose to they all are completed. Weapons and skills needed to slowly learned through the use of weapons and combat skills because their name implies weapons skills is the use of weapons, so once you use a Swords learned all five skills, you pick up another can be used as Swords five skills, without the need to re-learn slowly, they are the same type of weapon it. guild wars 2 gold portso you do not need to go looking for the skills of the trainer and then choose to unlock what skills through non-stop use, you will naturally grasp the actual use of the weapon. As previously said, the weapons skills to decide according to the type of weapons, not the weapons of the individual,First to take up arms, you will be able to use the technology first, followed by the sequence slowly learned skills 2 to 5. Treatment skills, generic skills and elite skills is another matter, including the fight against guild wars 2 gold for sale a powerful opponent guessing even drink spirits competition.and they need to learn the skill points, each skill must spend a number of skill points to learn, but once the players get skill points, you can according to their own like order to learn the skills, the knowledge and learning skills required number of points ranging from 1-14.