a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Eowyn, I apologize for coming across pointed or accusatory. That was not my intention. I guess I was just tired last night. I was wrong and wrote more out of frustration. My comments weren't directed at you, and more to others, even others not on this site. It is based on multiple observations.

The frustration is that people dismiss wihtout even looking or evaluating. I believe you dont do that. That is what you said just above and from what I've seen you write in the past.

That part wasnt well written, but I am saying what you said in your post, I agree and believe that you do that, and that is what aught to be done.

I have to go to work now, i diddnt proofread that and I am still tired so I hope that what I wrote makes sense.

[Guest]

No worries TPV, I didn't take offense at all. :) Have a good day at work.

[redi2ride]

IF I have seen angels and demons having a perfect knowlage of heaven and hell's existance. Does that mean I am damned if I don't fully repent before I die? Not just sent to a lesser Kingdom. As I have lived a good life doing good any worshiping GOD and repenting along the way but making mistakes.

[rameumptom]

I love Elder McConkie very much. He was an apostle and witness of the Lord. He was also a product of his times: many GAs speculated on a variety of concepts that went beyond doctrine and into personal belief/opinion. Elder McConkie admitted to being wrong in his views on blacks and the priesthood, after the 1978 Revelation came out. He was humble enough to correct his errors as he saw them play out in new revelation.

That said, we are moving beyond the speculations in Mormon Doctrine, and back to the core doctrines of the gospel. On the quotes you now hear from Elder McConkie, they are of his doctrinal statements, not his speculations. You don't hear anyone quoting him in Conference regarding a 6000 year old earth, evolution, etc. Why? Because the Church has moved beyond the speculating phase (begun with Brigham Young and ending in the 1980s), and onto a focus on the Book of Mormon, core doctrines, and the work at hand.

I'm not saying we shouldn't quote Elder McConkie. I'm saying we should quote him on those things that agree with the current views of the Church regarding doctrine.

You'll note that this discussion began regarding a quote from Elder McConkie, on his views regarding salvation/exaltation/calling and election made sure. I would say that the Church's views today are somewhat different than where they were 1/2 a century ago. Heck, I would also say that in regards to some statements in a "Miracle of Forgiveness" by then Elder Spencer W Kimball. Why? Because Satan being Sasquatch is not doctrinal. 1/2 century ago, the Church focused on members saving themselves "Obedience is the first law of heaven", rather than how it has changed since we've begun studying what the BoM and D&C actually tell us in regards to it. Elder McConkie often viewed the Telestial Kingdom as a form of hell, yet D&C 76 teaches it as a part of salvation and heaven. Which one is right? I guess it depends on one's viewpoint or the concepts being taught (Celestial is better than Telestial...). Yet, I know that I have a greater faith in Christ and his atonement today with what the Church teaches (Elder Holland is amazing on this), than how Elder McConkie wrote on it 1/2 century ago.

BTW, the new Gospel Principles manual is thinner. It teaches much of what was in the previous manual, but removed almost all of Elder McConkie's statements, replacing them with newer GAs and newer ways of viewing the gospel. It isn't that Elder McConkie is bad, but as I said, he was a product of his times and speculated a lot. We are now in an era of GAs speaking the doctrine, and leaving speculation alone. Speculation has embarassed our Church on many occasions, and still haunts us on some topics. We aren't going to convert souls if they think Mormons are racist, bigamists, or hateful of other groups, for example. Hence the changes we see in the Church that have been occurring since 1978.

Our Standard Works have not had a major update since 1981, having much of Elder McConkie in them. Still we have seen some changes: so the BoM intro now says that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of modern Indians, rather than being THE ancestor of all modern Indians. I could give many more examples, but these should suffice.

I don't just place this on Elder McConkie, either. As a Church, we downplay the Journal of Discourses, simply because of the amount of speculation Pres Young and others made in it. BH Roberts also speculated a lot, as did Elder Talmage and others. We need to take all their words into today's context of modern prophetic guidance.

Rameumptom

Nothing in your comments disprove anything stated by Elder McConkie. They simply attempt to marginalize a great Apostle....I often scratch my head when you do this because you have done it so frequently. I still hear Elder McConkie quotes used frequently in General Conference and in teaching manuals.....and last I checked, The Standard Works still contain a great deal of elder McConkie's "inspired work".

[Matthew0059]

I love Elder McConkie very much. He was an apostle and witness of the Lord. He was also a product of his times: many GAs speculated on a variety of concepts that went beyond doctrine and into personal belief/opinion.

I'm pretty sure all our modern apostles are also products of our own time- they just don't share their opinions anymore because, like you said, it can embarrass the Church more easily now than it used to. Joseph Smith's own opinions and doctrine also cause considerable harassment to the modern Church, whenever they're dug up and put on display for the world to see.

Regarding his (Elder McConkie's) quotes that started this thread, however, he's on very solid scriptural ground.

[jb789]

Very good points.

I'm probably not talking to anyone currently in this thread, but I'd like to point out something regarding spiritual knowledge, as given in the excellent scriptures above.

This is not secular knowledge. It is not scientific nor philosophical nor logical nor theological nor objectively verifiable. It cannot be measured or quantified by use of instruments or lab equipment.

It is spiritual knowledge, it is gnosis. It is characterized by an absolute, undiluted CERTAINTY that a thing is so, and not a certainty born of mental imbalance, but of spiritual light. This is the knowledge that the Holy Ghost gives us. And it may not be rational in a worldly way, but there is nothing more beautiful and uplifting than this.

When I am filled with such a beautiful sense of certainty, it is a gift indeed. And I know.

HiJolly

Just wanted to echo these words - this is true! At times I think with all these doctrinal questions, to really know the answer, you must receive the revelation yourself. Then you will know! To debate it, albeit in a logical fashion, is the carnal mind trying to understand the spiritual, it cannot be found this way.

Thus, no rational or logical answer will ever satisfy the spirit, it must be know through the spiritual, through revelation - and revelation is always personal. The prophets knew because they received such personal and direct revelation. The maxim "follow the prophet" really means do what they did - seek God, seek revelation! Know for yourself! Everything else is secondhand knowledge, it is just reading of another man's experiences with God, but they are not your experiences.

In regards to this specific question of calling and election made sure (which I don't know the answer to), even if one who had received, himself, direct revelation of the topic, told you the answer, it would still not satisfy you until you received the same answer via your own revelation. This is the only way the spirit is satisfied - through spiritual communication. And this always comes on the timetable of the Lord, when our minds are quiet and clear, and completely open to receiving revelation. Ironically, the question is often the barrier to receiving the answer! We must give up wanting to know with the mind - this is becoming like a child - then by and by we will receive our own revelation as needs be.

[selek]

Joseph Smith's own opinions and doctrine also cause considerable harassment to the modern Church, whenever they're dug up and put on display for the world to see.

I'm going to take exception to this for one very basic reason:

In my twenty plus years as a member- and my ten plus years as an amatuer apologist, it has never been Joseph's opinion- in context- which has embarrassed the Church.

In every instance, it has been the false spin, false representation, or false attribution of someone with an axe to grind that has caused the heartache.

One does not blame the hammer for the hand that weilds it.

Likewise, one should not blame Joseph for the fact that his critics lack integrity.

[Anddenex]

Since we as a people often forget and need to be reminded again, if you didn't reread Selek's post, look below and read it again.

I'm going to take exception to this for one very basic reason:

In my twenty plus years as a member- and my ten plus years as an amatuer apologist, it has never been Joseph's opinion- in context- which has embarrassed the Church.

In every instance, it has been the false spin, false representation, or false attribution of someone with an axe to grind that has caused the heartache.

One does not blame the hammer for the hand that weilds it.

Likewise, one should not blame Joseph for the fact that his critics lack integrity.

[Matthew0059]

I'm going to take exception to this for one very basic reason:

In my twenty plus years as a member- and my ten plus years as an amatuer apologist, it has never been Joseph's opinion- in context- which has embarrassed the Church.

I didn't mean large public "embarrassments" or incidents, but was thinking more along the lines of internet people (bloggers, usergroups and forums, etc.) who dig into original quotes and doctrine from Joseph Smith and then deride them. If you've spent 10 years as an amateur apologist, you've surely come across it more than a few times: fools mocking what they don't understand. Many times I've seen quotes correctly cited and in context- but those in the discussion simply disagree with Joseph, and disagree vehemently to the point of derision.

My statement was meant to illustrate that even the words of Joseph Smith would receive much of the same treatment as Elder McConkie's if they were as well known. It would have been more clear if I said Joseph Smith's opinions "on certain subjects, would also cause considerable...".

Using popularity and acceptance of the world (as measured by which opinions of the leaders are voiced, and which subjects are simply not discussed anymore) is a poor measuring stick. A better one is what the scriptures teach, and the best one is what the Spirit of God and revelation teach.

And to clarify, I side with Joseph in those incidents.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Matthew0059

[rameumptom]

The OP's quote of Elder McConkie is something, in light of more recent statements by Elder Holland, Pres Faust and others, is something I'm not certain of.

IMO, there is no sin that Christ cannot reach, heal and exalt. We assume that David lost his exaltation, because we impose modern teachings upon him and read the OT in light of our own interpretation. Yes, he may have lost his exaltation, but then some go further and insist David can only obtain the Telestial Kingdom. Too much speculation for me concerning the salvation of a child of God who lived thousands of years ago, and whose entire story fits within just a few short pages. We do not know the whole story, yet seek to judge it by innuendo: "he had more than one wife and lost them, so obviously he was sealed to them and lost them for eternity." Where do we get this supposition? It isn't in the scriptures anywhere. In fact, the D&C (132) and Book of Mormon (Jacob) disagree on David and his multiple wives. Clearly there is room for us to realize that David's fate is not in our hands nor judgment.

Second, for the person who has received his calling and election made sure - there is very little in the scriptures regarding it. It requires a lot of speculation to arrive at the conclusions that some GAs did, in regards to it. As I study the Book of Mormon and its teachings on who will become a son of perdition, it seems to me that there is a somewhat different view from Christ on who will become perdition: anyone who refuses eternally to accept the atonement of Christ in faith and repent of his/her sins.

Yes, it is highly likely that almost all people will accept the atonement and be rescued from hell and Outer Darkness. I am not convinced that a person must hold the MP, be endowed and sealed in the temple, and receive the calling and election sure, and then rebel against it by murdering an innocent to earn such a dubious reward. However, it is one scenario. Was Cain made a SoP because he murdered Abel? Or was it because he 1: refused to repent, 2. refused to have faith in Christ, 3. loved Satan more than God? It seems the murder just finalized the deal.

I do not believe David was ever in danger of becoming a SoP, simply because he was still willing to repent and believe in God. I believe there is plenty of punishment for him in spirit prison hell, so as he could still obtain exaltation after he has been buffeted by Satan on earth and in the spirit prison. Of course, this is also me speculating. But it seems my speculation is just as scripturally based as any other, including Elder McConkie's.

We cannot earn our exaltation. Modern GAs have frequently taught it isn't obedience that saves/exalts us (as Elder McConkie suggested in his writings), but BECOMING. Obedience is a part of becoming, which comes from the mighty change of heart from the Holy Ghost, which causes us to "no longer desire to do evil, but to do good continually" (Mosiah 5:1-4). Pharisees focused on obedience, and were condemned by Christ, because all of their strict obedience to the Law did not bring them any closer to the atonement.

Besides, should we not condemn Moses and Joshua for genocide? Or Nephi for the cold blooded murder of Laban? Can we not realize that God can save and exalt us, even after slaying innocent people (such as children and women)? If not, then we limit God's power to save.

And that is my personal view on this. It isn't that I think Elder McConkie is wrong, but that his explanation is incomplete.

[Matthew0059]

The OP's quote of Elder McConkie is something, in light of more recent statements by Elder Holland, Pres Faust and others, is something I'm not certain of.

The quote is backed up by scriptures which say essentially, word for word, the exact same thing! Every major idea has a correlating scripture in the D&C saying that exact doctrine. The only thing I didn't touch on in my previous post was the blood of Christ not cleansing someone who has "the spirit of repentance [leave] them", which is supported by D&C 29:17 ("they will not repent... my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not").

Even if these things aren't openly taught anymore and therefore not widely understood, it's still authoritative doctrine.

We assume that David lost his exaltation, because we impose modern teachings upon him and read the OT in light of our own interpretation.

David falling from exaltation is scripturally sound (D&C 132:39). It is the Lord interpreting the OT in light of His own interpretation, unless you want to claim section 132 isn't a true revelation. I know some people claim that, and often reference the seeming disparity between Jacob 2 and D&C 132. That, however, is an entirely different discussion.

Second, for the person who has received his calling and election made sure - there is very little in the scriptures regarding it.

Except there's enough to prove what Elder McConkie said.

My point in entering this thread was to prove that Elder McConkie's quote is actually supported from the scriptures, and is wholly sound doctrine according to the Standard Works of the Church. I think that's been proven, and no one is willing to go so far as to say that it's not scriptural. It may be incomplete, but then again so is everything we have at this time.

Edited to add:

Besides, should we not condemn Moses and Joshua for genocide? Or Nephi for the cold blooded murder of Laban? Can we not realize that God can save and exalt us, even after slaying innocent people (such as children and women)? If not, then we limit God's power to save.

All your examples were only acting out that obedience to God which is required for salvation and exaltation; this obedience is part of the process of "becoming". The Atonement can save us from serious sins committed ignorantly, but if we are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, and then willingly stain our garments again, God's power to save becomes limited because we sinned against the greater light we received. At least, this is the belief, the fear, and the faith that strengthened the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to prefer death over defending themselves in battle and subsequently gave rise to one of the most singular, faithful group of converts to be found in the Book of Mormon. Edited February 1, 2013 by Matthew0059

[skalenfehl]

Slightly off topic: Nephi did not slay Laban in cold blood. Nephi and brothers tried acquiring the brass plates through honest means, but Laban refused, having first tried to kill them and also robbing them, very serious offenses at the time. Jerusalem and Laban were ripe for destruction. The Lord gave Laban his chances before delivering him to Nephi. Laban's life was already forfeited. Moses is another matter.

[Blackmarch]

Slightly off topic: Nephi did not slay Laban in cold blood. Nephi and brothers tried acquiring the brass plates through honest means, but Laban refused, having first tried to kill them and also robbing them, very serious offenses at the time. Jerusalem and Laban were ripe for destruction. The Lord gave Laban his chances before delivering him to Nephi. Laban's life was already forfeited. Moses is another matter.

To add to this... Nephi had to be urged quite a bit to do this by the lord; he had extreme reluctance to take the life of another, even one that completely deserved it.

[JimJohnson]

Quote him on those things that agree with the current views of the Church regarding doctrine.

You'll note that this discussion began regarding a quote from Elder McConkie, on his views regarding salvation/exaltation/calling and election made sure. I would say that the Church's views today are somewhat different than where they were 1/2 a century ago. Heck, I would also say that in regards to some statements in a "Miracle of Forgiveness" by then Elder Spencer W Kimball. Why? Because Satan being Sasquatch is not doctrinal.

Rameumptom

If you go back and read the book again, you may discover that it was Cain that resembled Sasquatch rather than Satan. And it may not be doctrine, but is it false? If so, how do you know? I have always been far more interested in what the truth is than what official doctrine is. And the writings of James E. Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie contain a lot of truth compared with other sources beyond the standard works.

Saturday, February 16th I commemorate the 50th anniversary of my baptism. In all that time I have heard prophets and apostles say little if anything that contradicts the teachings of Bruce R McConkie in General Conference. And so what if they did? They would just be repeating their own personal opinions as McConkie did.

But what is true? Much that is true is not "official Church doctrine." Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse is not "official Church doctrine" either. But it is more truth concisely stated than I have ever read anywhere including the standard works.

[JimJohnson]

The OP's quote of Elder McConkie is something, in light of more recent statements by Elder Holland, Pres Faust and others, is something I'm not certain of.

IMO, there is no sin that Christ cannot reach, heal and exalt. We assume that David lost his exaltation, because we impose modern teachings upon him and read the OT in light of our own interpretation.

The passages with which I am most familiar on David and whether or not he is or ever can be exalted are in the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Perhaps I missed the Old Testament references you speak of.

[Vort]

We assume that David lost his exaltation, because we impose modern teachings upon him and read the OT in light of our own interpretation.

What do you mean, ram? We assume David lost his exaltation because the Lord revealed as much in a revelation recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. Do you disbelieve this?

Yes, he may have lost his exaltation, but then some go further and insist David can only obtain the Telestial Kingdom. Too much speculation for me concerning the salvation of a child of God who lived thousands of years ago, and whose entire story fits within just a few short pages. We do not know the whole story, yet seek to judge it by innuendo: "he had more than one wife and lost them, so obviously he was sealed to them and lost them for eternity." Where do we get this supposition? It isn't in the scriptures anywhere. In fact, the D&C (132) and Book of Mormon (Jacob) disagree on David and his multiple wives. Clearly there is room for us to realize that David's fate is not in our hands nor judgment.

This I agree with.

We cannot earn our exaltation. Modern GAs have frequently taught it isn't obedience that saves/exalts us (as Elder McConkie suggested in his writings)

I don't believe he suggested any such thing. The fact that he outright SAID the opposite argues against this idea, in my opinion.

Besides, should we not condemn Moses and Joshua for genocide? Or Nephi for the cold blooded murder of Laban?

No. People are never condemned for obeying God.

[rameumptom]

JimJohnson,

Yes, I meant to write Cain, but in rushing a response put Satan. My point being that there are many members who read that and conclude that Cain is still alive and wandering the earth as Sasquatch, and perhaps all Bigfoot are descendants of Cain. What has that got to do with the Miracle of Forgiveness or repentance or commandments? Nothing. It has everything to do with placing a very speculative story into a book that was to focus on repentance, forgiveness and doctrine. For me, that makes me have to consider everything in the book from its lowest common denominator (as well as its highest).

I agree with you on many points you make. The problem is, what is true/truth, and what are the core doctrines? When GAs speculate, many members take those speculations as truth and doctrine, rather than the thinking/concepts of a leader. I've seen people fall away from the Church, because a speculation ended up being discarded later by the Church. And it has happened since the early Church.

When Brigham Young stated that polygamy was the only form of exaltation in heaven, and the Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy, it caused many people to leave the Church, including two apostles.

When the priesthood was given to all men in 1978, I knew members who left the Church, because Elder McConkie and many other GAs had speculated the blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millennium. There's been this thought in the Church that apostles are infallible in their teachings. Since 1978, the Church has moved away from the speculating apostles, and to apostles that teach the core doctrines of the Church, those things we know are true.

As I stated, I have no problem with most of Elder McConkie's teachings. I disagree with him on some things. My big problem is when others read his authoritative sounding teachings, and it is imprinted in their minds that all of it is true and doctrinal. I have that same problem with other GAs who have speculated in the past.

[Just_A_Guy]

When Brigham Young stated that polygamy was the only form of exaltation in heaven, and the Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy, it caused many people to leave the Church, including two apostles.

In point of fact, I think only one apostle - John W. Taylor - left the Church. Moses Thatcher, and later Matthias Cowley, were dropped from the Quorum of the 12 (and Cowley's priesthood was suspended) but retained their Church membership.

[JimJohnson]

JimJohnson,

I agree with you on many points you make. The problem is, what is true/truth, and what are the core doctrines? When GAs speculate, many members take those speculations as truth and doctrine, rather than the thinking/concepts of a leader. I've seen people fall away from the Church, because a speculation ended up being discarded later by the Church. And it has happened since the early Church.

It seems to me that the truth matters more than what "many menbers" think about speculations. And I do not worry about those who might fall away. If they enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost, they will recognize speculation for what it is. If they don't, their goose is cooked anyway.

[norah63]

The OP seems a little like what I have heard in other faiths. Assurance of salvation, or something like that.

Once a dear lady asked me if I didn't doubt my salvation from time to time. That thought had never occured to me.

What would you exchange it for? A mess of pottage? I don't even like pottage. :^)

Now being raised with the levels of heaven, I can understand that we always desire the best.

And if that is the reward given, then praise be. I trust my reward to the giver.

In our non-denomination bible study they call it thirty, sixty and a hundred fold blessing. outer court inner court, holy of holies. It got boring that I left.

I notice on a lot of the christian forums that there is great debate on this also. Not exactly levels of glory, just will you go to heaven if, this or that.

Interesting to read how others think.

[Suzie]

In point of fact, I think only one apostle - John W. Taylor - left the Church. Moses Thatcher, and later Matthias Cowley, were dropped from the Quorum of the 12 (and Cowley's priesthood was suspended) but retained their Church membership.

I just wanted to add (since we were discussing in another thread about Emeritus status as well as resignation of Apostles in the present day) that before Matthias Cowley's priesthood was suspended and before John W. Taylor was excommunicated, both resigned as members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

[Just_A_Guy]

I just wanted to add (since we were discussing in another thread about Emeritus status as well as resignation of Apostles in the present day) that before Matthias Cowley's priesthood was suspended and before John W. Taylor was excommunicated, both resigned as members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

True; though I understand it was (as the state bar might put it) a resignation under threat of suspension - not exactly what we Mormons would call an "honorable release".

[Suzie]

True; though I understand it was (as the state bar might put it) a resignation under threat of suspension - not exactly what we Mormons would call an "honorable release".

In the case of Cowley it seems like it was a request by President Joseph F. Smith not sure about Taylor's case although both resigned the exact same day. It was bound to happen with or without pressure.