Phineas

Bruce R. McConkie’s Legacy.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Is there something wrong with that? Bruce Redd McConkie was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Literally. How much more authoritative can you get?

Good point.  He was an apostle of Christ.  But all apostles and prophets are people with different styles and personalities.  Just look at the current 15.  They’re all unique.  They preach the same gospel but do so in different ways.  Just like we have four different  writers of the Gospels.  

Individual church members often gravitate toward some General Authorities  more than others.  I have my favorites.  You probably have yours. 

Edited by Phineas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a short anecdote that I heard about Elder McConkie a few hours ago during the Saturday night session of stake conference - it doesnt contribute anything to the question being discussed here but I think its worth sharing. This was shared by a counsellor in the Mission Presidency, recalling an incidence when he was 12 years old attending a stake conference at which Elder McConkie was presiding.

Elder McConkie gets up and says he has a message that the prophet has charged him to deliver to the saints in this city. But while waiting for his turn to talk, he says he felt the spirit prompting him to talk about something completely different. So what to do, he asks the congregation, follow the prophet or follow the spirit? He explains that he will follow the spirit and then report to the Prophet what he has done when he gets back to Salt Lake. 

Later in tonight's conference, the visiting Area Seventy decided to elaborate on that theme by spending several minutes discussing Doctrine and Covenants 46:2

2 But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the aelders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to bconduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Area Seventy went on to carefully explain that the promptings of the Spirit trump whatever it might say in the written material that the church relies on, specifically the scriptures and the Handbook.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't confuse the Church becoming more understanding with the Church becoming more accepting. As sin becomes more prevalent Church leaders are definitely more understanding of those who fall into temptation verses those who years ago usually had to seek it out. This does not mean however that sin is any more acceptable than before. Good Ship Zion may be getting covered in a layer of my winter fleece bed sheets which makes it feel more warm and cozy for those who are struggling but anyone who runs headlong into it is still going to come away with just as big a headache and goose egg as before. Maybe that's not a good analogy but my main point still stands. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phineas said:

Good point.  He was an apostle of Christ.  But all apostles and prophets are people with different styles and personalities.  Just look at the current 15.  They’re all unique.  They preach the same gospel but do so in different ways.  Just like we have four different  writers of the Gospels.  

Individual church members often gravitate toward some General Authorities  more than others.  I have my favorites.  You probably have yours. 

So then, let's be precise. The bee in these people's bonnet is not that McConkie and his father-in-law were "authoritarian". The irritant is that these people don't like how McConkie and Smith said things.

So while admitting that those men were true apostles of the Lord, these people nevertheless insist that their plain, direct, unfuzzified speech was so offensive as to render their teachings of little effect today. In other words, this modern generation will not accept direct, plain-spoken, unfiltered true doctrine, so therefore the Church (and presumably He who stands at its head) are obligated to cater to their tastes in matters of divine instruction.

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

Is there something wrong with that? Bruce Redd McConkie was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Literally. How much more authoritative can you get?

My feelings are more authoritative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fether said:

My feelings are more authoritative

If you're joking, then I apologize for it going over my head.

Assuming you're not joking, then...you're joking. Right? Surely you don't really believe that your "feelings" are more authoritative in any eternal or divine sense than the teachings of an apostle of Jesus Christ.

If by "feelings" you mean "spiritual revelations", then you might perhaps have a point—assuming you're proficient at discriminating between true and false revelation, a topic which the Prophet Joseph Smith thought important enough to warn the people about. But since true revelation will never deny God's truths, it seems unlikely that you would receive spiritual revelation from God that contradicts the teachings of an apostle. What is far more likely to happen is that the Spirit teaches you that the apostle's teachings are not what you think he meant, but rather mean something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 9:42 AM, Vort said:

Let me say in sincerity and brotherly kindness that I think this was your first mistake. I am no fan of "Faith Matters", though I concede the group name's gently clever pun. Many, including some on this site, seem to consider Terryl Givens and his wife Fiona as Second Prophets. They are no such thing. The group is seriously off-kilter. They seem to me to be, to some extent at least, wolves in somewhat shabby sheepskins. 

(Random tangent)

I disagree with Givens on a few things (he suggests, for example, that progression between kingdoms is possible; which I think would be cool but which I think we have no doctrinal reason to accept as absolutely true).  But IMHO he’s consistently right where it counts.  He has endorsed the authority of the church leadership repeatedly, has openly said that our doctrine has no room for gay marriage, he recently wrote a condemnation of abortion, and his son Nathaniel blogs regularly and is a strong conservative both theologically and politically (and a remarkably thoughtful one, at that).

Givens does keep some pretty questionable company, though; and the FM entry on LGBTQ issues is gosh awful (let’s “explore” everything about this issue except the possibility that maybe, just maybe, gay sex is objectively wrong!)   And I frankly don’t have a lot of respect for Mason, either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I disagree with Givens on a few things (he suggests, for example, that progression between kingdoms is possible; which I think would be cool but which I think we have no doctrinal reason to accept as absolutely true).  But IMHO he’s consistently right where it counts.

Let me clarify my previous statement:

On 3/12/2021 at 8:42 AM, Vort said:

Let me say in sincerity and brotherly kindness that I think this was your first mistake. I am no fan of "Faith Matters", though I concede the group name's gently clever pun. Many, including some on this site, seem to consider Terryl Givens and his wife Fiona as Second Prophets. They are no such thing. The group is seriously off-kilter. They seem to me to be, to some extent at least, wolves in somewhat shabby sheepskins. I do not completely doubt their sincerity in all things—but I could say the same for any anti-Mormon or anti-Christian group.

The two bolded statements above refer to different antecedents.

  • "They are no such thing" refers to the Givenses not being, as I put it, "Second Prophets". This is an idea I sense among some that speak very highly of them. I am sure that the Givenses themselves would openly concede it to be a false idea, so I didn't mean it as a personal criticism of them, just as a recognition that their support of this or that group does not prima facie (<--lawyer-speak; you're welcome, JAG :)make the group acceptable.
  • "They seem to me to be...wolves in somewhat shabby sheepskins" does NOT refer to the Givenses, but to the Faith Matters group as a whole, or at least to many elements of that group. Those who came up with many of their "Big Questions" might well be included in that opinion.

Sorry for the confusion. My bad.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(Random tangent)f

Givens does keep some pretty questionable company, though; and the FM entry on LGBTQ issues is gosh awful (let’s “explore” everything about this issue except the possibility that maybe, just maybe, gay sex is objectively wrong!)   And I frankly don’t have a lot of respect for Mason, either.  

I really like Mason even though I probably disagree with him politically.  His book Planted was very helpful to me.

I am also a huge fan of Terryl and Fiona.  I wouldn’t call them second prophets but they have  been immensely influential to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phineas said:

I really like Mason even though I probably disagree with him politically.  His book Planted was very helpful to me.

I am also a huge fan of Terryl and Fiona.  I wouldn’t call them second prophets but they have  been immensely influential to me.  

It’s admittedly been a while since I read Mason.  My recollection is thinking that he was saying a lot of purdy things; and it was a shame that so many of the things he said just weren’t true.

I do like the Givenses, very much (and I have a bit of a crush on Fiona’s voice.  I could listen to that accent all day . . .)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vort said:

therefore the Church (and presumably He who stands at its head) are obligated to cater to their tastes in matters of divine instruction.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your point, and include the scripture below as another perspective and as a bit of food for thought.

20  And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21  To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22  To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23  And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 9:20 - 23)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 10:26 AM, Vort said:

So then, let's be precise. The bee in these people's bonnet is not that McConkie and his father-in-law were "authoritarian". The irritant is that these people don't like how McConkie and Smith said things.

So while admitting that those men were true apostles of the Lord, these people nevertheless insist that their plain, direct, unfuzzified speech was so offensive as to render their teachings of little effect today. In other words, this modern generation will not accept direct, plain-spoken, unfiltered true doctrine, so therefore the Church (and presumably He who stands at its head) are obligated to cater to their tastes in matters of divine instruction.

I disagree.

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual. I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was. And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching. 

But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT prophets often delivered the Lord's messages to people who didn't like it so much, they tried to kill the prophet.  Sometimes, the prophet could see trouble coming, and took off to friggin' Tarshish to avoid the trouble.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlimac said:

besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him

Elder Eyring:

Quote

I’ve known a few prophets. You’ll hear them criticized and attacked, and people will sometimes talk about their failures or their weaknesses, because they’re not perfect. Clearly, my problem and your problem is to hear the word of God from and through imperfect teachers and leaders. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, carlimac said:

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual. I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was. And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching. 

But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

Joseph, his son, was very much like his Father (except younger and nearer to my age).  He was instrumental in my understanding of the gospel and the things that were taught during that time period.

Many would say that he he seemed very much as you describe Elder McConkie.  I know at times I was probably an annoyance to him and because I did not understand where he was coming from or agree with it (at that time, I have since changed) he occasionally made jokes at my expense.  However, he also had a GREAT LOVE of the scriptures and of his fellowman.  It may not have been easy to see if you only knew him on the surface, but as you grew to know him more deeply you grew to understand his love of others and how he expressed it.

In many ways, I think the same would apply to his father.  In a scenario discussing the gospel he was sure of himself and the things he was teaching.  This could give him a more austere appearance, but when at home or among others he had another side of a compassionate and dedicated friend and father. 

Because of the firm convictions of Joseph McConkie and how he expressed his understanding of the gospel it stuck with me for many years.  I didn't understand his understanding as a new member, but after years of reflection on what the scriptures said and what he said I grew in understanding.  I finally understood where his doctrine came from and how it was supported by the scriptures.  It has changed my life and my own knowledge of the gospel and the Lord. 

If he had not been as he was, i do not know if I would have ever come to the understanding of that, and for that I am grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 10:08 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

(Random tangent)

I disagree with Givens on a few things (he suggests, for example, that progression between kingdoms is possible; which I think would be cool but which I think we have no doctrinal reason to accept as absolutely true).  But IMHO he’s consistently right where it counts.  He has endorsed the authority of the church leadership repeatedly, has openly said that our doctrine has no room for gay marriage, he recently wrote a condemnation of abortion, and his son Nathaniel blogs regularly and is a strong conservative both theologically and politically (and a remarkably thoughtful one, at that).

Givens does keep some pretty questionable company, though; and the FM entry on LGBTQ issues is gosh awful (let’s “explore” everything about this issue except the possibility that maybe, just maybe, gay sex is objectively wrong!)   And I frankly don’t have a lot of respect for Mason, either.  

I used to listen to him a bit a few years ago, but not anymore. Something just felt off about him and his wife to me. They seem to be the type of people that want others to know how smart they are. I also didn't like how they talked about things that had no real impact on our current standing in the Lord's plan of Happiness, aka, "vain mysteries". He often got into the weeds just so he could show others that he could find his way back out. If you keep getting lost on purpose, eventually you will end up that way.

An apostle of Jesus Christ may be wrong on certain issues, (they can have opinions too) but their faults will never lead you away from the Lord. I would choose McConkie every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Edited by scottyg
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, carlimac said:

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual.

I tend to think that the individual is usually concerned about being loved by others, which includes being loved by the Lord.

Elder McKonkie's M.O. was to remind the individual that WE need to love the Lord.

Quote

"Wickedness never was happiness.  But neither was luke-warmness happiness."  -- Neil A Maxwell.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 10:37 AM, carlimac said:

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual. I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was. And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching. 

But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

We all make assessments based on the information that is available at the time.  Never-the-less, for those that are living their covenants during these Last-days (according to our 9th Article of Faith) will receive revelations that will CHANGE our understanding of certain things.  I say CHANGE because if nothing CHANGES there in no reason for new or continuing revelation.  It seems to me that some interpret CHANGE as mistakes (something wrong) in previous understandings.  I would guess that such views would be "scary" for those seeking truth but from my personal experience if being wrong from time to time is too scary - then eyes that should see will become to scared to see and ears that should hear will become to scared to hear.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We all make assessments based on the information that is available at the time.  Never-the-less, for those that are living their covenants during these Last-days (according to our 9th Article of Faith) will receive revelations that will CHANGE our understanding of certain things.  I say CHANGE because if nothing CHANGES there in no reason for new or continuing revelation.  It seems to me that some interpret CHANGE as mistakes (something wrong) in previous understandings.  I would guess that such views would be "scary" for those seeking truth but from my personal experience if being wrong from time to time is too scary - then eyes that should see will become to scared to see and ears that should hear will become to scared to hear.

To paraphrase the words of Morpheus:

There is a difference between knowing the path and walking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 9:37 AM, carlimac said:

The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual.

Remember that your inability to hear McConkie's love and concern for those he taught doesn't mean it wasn't there, just that you can't hear it. The hearer's deafness is not the speaker's fault.

On 3/14/2021 at 9:37 AM, carlimac said:

I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was.

God is infinitely less accepting of imperfections than any man could be. Literally no unclean thing can dwell in God's presence.

On 3/14/2021 at 9:37 AM, carlimac said:

And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching.

Then by the same token, if ever you have been wrong about anything, may no one ever trust you on any point ever again, including those things for which Jesus Christ has explicitly called you.

Sound reasonable? If not, then perhaps you should rethink your attitude. Talk about not being sufficiently "accepting of mistakes and imperfections"!

Interesting, too, that in a lifetime of listening to McConkie, I have never felt scared by his style of preaching, nor have those close to me who have listened to him. What do you make of that?

On 3/14/2021 at 9:37 AM, carlimac said:

But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

I take such a remark as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

To paraphrase the words of Morpheus:

There is a difference between knowing the path and walking it.

Not sure if I agree with Morpheus (who ever that is).  I do not believe one can indeed know "the path" until or unless they have walked it.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not sure if I agree with Morpheus (who ever that is).  I do not believe one can indeed know "the path" until or unless they have walked it.

Yes. That's kind of the point.

Morpheus was a character in The Matrix series, mentor to the primary protagonist (Neo).  Neo had gone to see "The Oracle" who told him he was NOT "The One".  It turned out later, that it was a lie.  But because of that lie, Neo went a different route and made different choices than he would have had he been told the truth.

Later, he was confused about the situation because of what the Oracle had told him.  Morpheus told him

Quote

The Oracle told you exactly what you needed to hear.  That's it.  Nothing more.

You need to know the difference between knowing the path and walking it.

This is somewhat like "once you realize you're humble, then you've lost your humility." 

Neo had to believe he was NOT who he was so that he would eventually walk the path to eventually become who he was.

One could even say that it was not a lie.  He wasn't (past tense) The One at the time he saw the Oracle.  But after he had walked a certain path, he became The One.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now