Episode 57: A Requiem for Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine

John Larsen, Mike, and Glenn are joined by special guest Jon B to discuss the end of the run of Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. Episode 57 Your browser does not support the audio element.
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

245 comments on “Episode 57: A Requiem for Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine”

  1. NightAvatar Reply

    Excellent job, guys!

    Amazingly, I really liked Mike in this one (that’s two in a row!). Seems like he’s toning down a bit and being much friendlier in tone than previous podcasts.

    One question which I wish was addressed:

    If Bruce R. and his book are the be all and end all for Mormon Doctrine, why on earth is the church discontinuing it?

    It seems to me they are trying to distance themselves from such blank and white views (bring in the marketing dept and lawyers, as John said) but what are your views? Mike?

    Is it a mistake? Or will it profit the church to distance themselves from the book?

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Well, I asked the local Deseret Book what the deal was and they said they didnt know. They said it was simply out of print and that they couldent order any more. They did point out two books on the shelf there that are similar in style to Mormon Doctrine.

      Also we might look to D&C 58: 26-27. We have the same sources available to us that Elder McConkie had available to him. Perhaps we should step up and do a little homework for ourselves as opposed to our having all of the answers handed to us.

      • John Larsen Reply

        Mike,

        And why do you think it is out of print after the 40th printing? The point remains the same. I don’t think it is just because someone at DB forgot to notify the printer.

        It also doesn’t explain why all of the books disappeared from stock abruptly. Usually books that are out of print and they no longer want to carry go on clearance sales. This one just disappeared. Everywhere. At the same time.

          • John Larsen

            I saw it on a message board. I then sent some of my peeps to go check it out.

            Have you notice that it has now been picked up by bigger news outlets? Did we get our first scoop?

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Really? I didn’t know the even pulled it from the shelves!

          Why would they do that if it truly contained the Church’s official stance on all things?

          Either they’re afraid of the legal ramifications (who knows what they could be?), or they are ashamed of what they once believed and taught, or they simply don’t want the masses to know of The True Meaty Doctrine which all must accept in order to gain exaltation. (WTF?)

          • Ligairi

            The book has been controversial since day one. Church leaders who reviewed the book early on said that there were multiple errors and matters of opinion on every page.

            After the printing of first edition, David O. Mackay said that it was so full of errors that it should not be re-published and it was “unfortunate” that the book had been so widely distributed. The controversial publication of the book led to a new rule that General Authorities should not publish without approval by the first presidency.

            MacKay was later approached by McConkie when in ill-health (six years later) and asked if he could re-publish the book if he made corrections. MacKay agreed only under the supervision of Spencer W. Kimball and the understanding that it would not be considered official church doctrine.

            The book has undergone tens of revisions since then because of conflicts with official church doctrine.

  2. NightAvatar Reply

    Excellent job, guys!

    Amazingly, I really liked Mike in this one (that’s two in a row!). Seems like he’s toning down a bit and being much friendlier in tone than previous podcasts.

    One question which I wish was addressed:

    If Bruce R. and his book are the be all and end all for Mormon Doctrine, why on earth is the church discontinuing it?

    It seems to me they are trying to distance themselves from such blank and white views (bring in the marketing dept and lawyers, as John said) but what are your views? Mike?

    Is it a mistake? Or will it profit the church to distance themselves from the book?

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Well, I asked the local Deseret Book what the deal was and they said they didnt know. They said it was simply out of print and that they couldent order any more. They did point out two books on the shelf there that are similar in style to Mormon Doctrine.

      Also we might look to D&C 58: 26-27. We have the same sources available to us that Elder McConkie had available to him. Perhaps we should step up and do a little homework for ourselves as opposed to our having all of the answers handed to us.

      • John Larsen Reply

        Mike,

        And why do you think it is out of print after the 40th printing? The point remains the same. I don’t think it is just because someone at DB forgot to notify the printer.

        It also doesn’t explain why all of the books disappeared from stock abruptly. Usually books that are out of print and they no longer want to carry go on clearance sales. This one just disappeared. Everywhere. At the same time.

          • John Larsen

            I saw it on a message board. I then sent some of my peeps to go check it out.

            Have you notice that it has now been picked up by bigger news outlets? Did we get our first scoop?

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Really? I didn’t know the even pulled it from the shelves!

          Why would they do that if it truly contained the Church’s official stance on all things?

          Either they’re afraid of the legal ramifications (who knows what they could be?), or they are ashamed of what they once believed and taught, or they simply don’t want the masses to know of The True Meaty Doctrine which all must accept in order to gain exaltation. (WTF?)

          • Ligairi

            The book has been controversial since day one. Church leaders who reviewed the book early on said that there were multiple errors and matters of opinion on every page.

            After the printing of first edition, David O. Mackay said that it was so full of errors that it should not be re-published and it was “unfortunate” that the book had been so widely distributed. The controversial publication of the book led to a new rule that General Authorities should not publish without approval by the first presidency.

            MacKay was later approached by McConkie when in ill-health (six years later) and asked if he could re-publish the book if he made corrections. MacKay agreed only under the supervision of Spencer W. Kimball and the understanding that it would not be considered official church doctrine.

            The book has undergone tens of revisions since then because of conflicts with official church doctrine.

  3. John Dehlin Reply

    I was friends with one of Bruce R’s grandsons a few years back. He told me that (according to the family) the changes made to Mormon Doctrine were not made because they were incorrect/false — but because some leaders of the church had deemed them as not “useful” to discuss.

    In other words — Boyd K. Packer’s famous quote (“some things that are true are not very useful”) cuts both ways.

    • Ligairi Reply

      Well, that anecdote from Bruce R’s grandson clearly contradicts several church General Authorities at the time, including the official church journals of David O. McKay:

      “THURSDAY, January 7, 1960
      10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book, Mormon Doctrine”

      “The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.”

      […]

      “Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.”

      […]

      “It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.”

      • Richard of Norway Reply

        I don’t see any contradictions there, unless you mean the word “corrections” in that last paragraph. Most likely McKay wrote “corrections” when he meant “correlations” or “changes”.

        No matter. The book contained plenty of bizarre and clearly false doctrines that the vast majority of LDS fully believe even today. So the book does an accurate job of relaying LDS doctrines, representing a majority of LDS conservative’s thinking.

  4. John Dehlin Reply

    I was friends with one of Bruce R’s grandsons a few years back. He told me that (according to the family) the changes made to Mormon Doctrine were not made because they were incorrect/false — but because some leaders of the church had deemed them as not “useful” to discuss.

    In other words — Boyd K. Packer’s famous quote (“some things that are true are not very useful”) cuts both ways.

    • Ligairi Reply

      Well, that anecdote from Bruce R’s grandson clearly contradicts several church General Authorities at the time, including the official church journals of David O. McKay:

      “THURSDAY, January 7, 1960
      10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book, Mormon Doctrine”

      “The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.”

      […]

      “Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.”

      […]

      “It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.”

      • Richard of Norway Reply

        I don’t see any contradictions there, unless you mean the word “corrections” in that last paragraph. Most likely McKay wrote “corrections” when he meant “correlations” or “changes”.

        No matter. The book contained plenty of bizarre and clearly false doctrines that the vast majority of LDS fully believe even today. So the book does an accurate job of relaying LDS doctrines, representing a majority of LDS conservative’s thinking.

  5. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    Great episode, I really like the ones that discuss historical elements of Mormonism. I have to take my hat off to Glenn, Jon B, and John for letting Mike represent his beliefs…there were several times I got verbal with Mike listening to this one; it serves the goal of this podcast well to hear all sides…even the ones puffed up with elitism :).

    • Derrick Reply

      I loved the topic; there is certainly a lot of fascinating history behind Mormon Doctrine and the guy behind it. I think a little bit of steam came out of my ears sometimes when Mike was sharing his views. I know a few members to this day who seem to share those beliefs, but the VAST majority of the Mormons in my circle (my family, my friends, my ward members) do not believe that, and it is a little troublesome that he is the token “active Mormon voice.”

      I really admire Mike’s willingness to come on and talk about beliefs he must know are not popular. I wonder if he feels that

      No amount of “tone changing” is going to change the anti-Catholic and anti-black doctrine. I don’t blame Bruce R for being wrong–and I suppose it would be impossible to respond with a blanket statement like WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT, but all that I can say in response is I don’t believe that, and I consider myself to be quite active and orthodox in the Mormon Church.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Its not Elitism, its truth. If it offends you that might have more to do with you than the topic your upset about.

      • Glenn Reply

        Interesting that you give Elitism a capital E and not a capital T to truth…

        From Wikipedia:

        Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals — a select group of people with, intellect, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

        How is the Bruce R. brand of Mormonism not elitism?

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Excellent quote, Glenn. If the shoe fits…

          Truth is, Elitism is exactly what it is but Mike finds the term offensive, perhaps similar to how blacks may feel about what MD says about them, or how Catholics feel about being part of “the devil’s church”.

          • Mike Tannehill

            D&C 132:12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

            Yeh, that sounds elitist. The old “My way or the highway” routine. These old men and their “laws”. That Jesus guy really needs to liberal up.

          • NightAvatar

            Mike, you realize section 132 was written to convince Emma that it was okay for him to have several wives?

            Jesus *was* a liberal. You, Mike, are a Pharisee.

          • In The Back

            Using section 132 to quote Jesus?
            I would figure that even the bluest truest TBM could admit that 132 has nothing to do with the words of Jesus.

  6. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    Great episode, I really like the ones that discuss historical elements of Mormonism. I have to take my hat off to Glenn, Jon B, and John for letting Mike represent his beliefs…there were several times I got verbal with Mike listening to this one; it serves the goal of this podcast well to hear all sides…even the ones puffed up with elitism :).

    • Derrick Reply

      I loved the topic; there is certainly a lot of fascinating history behind Mormon Doctrine and the guy behind it. I think a little bit of steam came out of my ears sometimes when Mike was sharing his views. I know a few members to this day who seem to share those beliefs, but the VAST majority of the Mormons in my circle (my family, my friends, my ward members) do not believe that, and it is a little troublesome that he is the token “active Mormon voice.”

      I really admire Mike’s willingness to come on and talk about beliefs he must know are not popular. I wonder if he feels that

      No amount of “tone changing” is going to change the anti-Catholic and anti-black doctrine. I don’t blame Bruce R for being wrong–and I suppose it would be impossible to respond with a blanket statement like WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT, but all that I can say in response is I don’t believe that, and I consider myself to be quite active and orthodox in the Mormon Church.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Its not Elitism, its truth. If it offends you that might have more to do with you than the topic your upset about.

      • Glenn Reply

        Interesting that you give Elitism a capital E and not a capital T to truth…

        From Wikipedia:

        Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals — a select group of people with, intellect, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

        How is the Bruce R. brand of Mormonism not elitism?

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Excellent quote, Glenn. If the shoe fits…

          Truth is, Elitism is exactly what it is but Mike finds the term offensive, perhaps similar to how blacks may feel about what MD says about them, or how Catholics feel about being part of “the devil’s church”.

          • Mike Tannehill

            D&C 132:12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

            Yeh, that sounds elitist. The old “My way or the highway” routine. These old men and their “laws”. That Jesus guy really needs to liberal up.

          • NightAvatar

            Mike, you realize section 132 was written to convince Emma that it was okay for him to have several wives?

            Jesus *was* a liberal. You, Mike, are a Pharisee.

          • In The Back

            Using section 132 to quote Jesus?
            I would figure that even the bluest truest TBM could admit that 132 has nothing to do with the words of Jesus.

  7. Derrick Reply

    I just realized I didn’t finish my middle paragraph. Which is good–I tend to be overly verbose.

  8. Oz Reply

    “That’s real service, that’s not Paul Dunn service is it?” Hilarious John. Too often I have been guilty of pointing to Bruce R. for some of the nonsense he wrote, but you guys did a good job at pointing out, that many of these doctrines were already commonly believed by most members, or influenced by Joseph F.

    When asked, which GA today is Bruce R. like? Elder Bednar came to mind. Although I actually like Elder Bednar, I hear what I think are odd instructions from time to time, that really are a bit silly. Two conferences ago about “not telling your family that you love them from the pulpit” or the need of “bearing a spontaneous testimony.” I realize this isn’t anything compared to McConkies “face cards” or “ouija boards,” but its stuff that makes me ask…really?…is this it? Plus, I get to hear the Bishopric before testimony meetings, tell everyone “we have been instructed to not express our love for our families over the pulpit” for the next year.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Holy crank, really? I missed that. I can’t believe people are being told not to express love for their families from ANYWHERE – even if it is “the pulpit”. Wow.

      • Carey Reply

        His point was that it shouldn’t be the only place our family heard us say that we love them, we should be saying it to them and not just in a public testimony, it doesn’t prevent you from saying it there.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Who’s point was that? It sounded clear to me: “we have been instructed to not express our love for our families over the pulpit”

          • chris

            Sheesh… you guys are so quick to get your digs in.

            I really love Elder Bednar’s talks. I remember this one. He clearly and specifically said, you should not get up and confess that you don’t tell your wife you love them very often, but you’re doing it now. His point was it is hypocritical for you to be publically professing your love and not doing it in private.

            I just went and dug up a quote from the talk to make sure I’m not remembering it wrong…

            “Sometimes in a sacrament meeting talk or testimony, we hear a statement like this: “I know I do not tell my spouse often enough how much I love her. Such an expression of love may be appropriate. But when I hear a statement like this, I squirm and silently exclaim that the spouse and children should not be hearing this apparently rare and private communication in public at church!”

            He did not say not to tell your wife you love them publically. But if it’s so rare, you shouldn’t be only saying it in public. You should love them in private and say it frequently, and not just get up and say it because people are watching.

            Please brothers and sisters, step back and consider things, have charity in considering their words and commenting on the, especially being critical. It’s ironic considering this post’s topic and the much maligned Bruce R…

          • Oz

            Chris…I’m not trying to get a “dig in” with my comment. I liked the talk and I understood what he was trying to say. But my Bishopric clearly interpreted and expresses that message before every testimony meeting. It is another example of a GA making a minor point and it being blown up by some of us who are so orthodox we turn a minor point into all out doctrinal truth. If Elder Bednar was on the stand, I think most would think twice about expressing their love to their spouses or families, they wouldn’t want Elder Bednar to “squirm.” They most likely would not do it.

          • chris

            Well, unfortunately the Bishopric jumped to the other side of the wrong conclusion if they are indeed telling people not to announce you love your spouse before testimony meeting. I know God lives and I love him, and I know he loves me and wants me to be united in love with my family, and I love them dearly is not a statement that would make anyone squirm, especially Elder Bednar. Some get offended or annoyed at Elder Bednar for his remarks others appear to take it too far.

            Testimonies shouldn’t be confessionals (such as misdeeds or confessing you don’t do X enough) or travelogues. But the love we have for each other allows us to see how much Christ loves us. If you’re really so concerned about what your Priesthood leaders are doing, as I would be, I would really go and tell them you love and sustain them, but want it to be understood that your love for the Gospel and your love for your family are indistinguishable and can not be separated. Of course… me speaking, I’d be happy to follow their counsel if they really feel its important. But I’d be surprised if a heartfelt conversation wouldn’t lead to some understanding.

            As far as this post and Bruce R. I will fully agree that he was probably too harsh and unequivocal at times. But I still think too often we are quick to be a bit argumentative just because we get annoyed with his tone.

  9. Derrick Reply

    I just realized I didn’t finish my middle paragraph. Which is good–I tend to be overly verbose.

  10. Oz Reply

    “That’s real service, that’s not Paul Dunn service is it?” Hilarious John. Too often I have been guilty of pointing to Bruce R. for some of the nonsense he wrote, but you guys did a good job at pointing out, that many of these doctrines were already commonly believed by most members, or influenced by Joseph F.

    When asked, which GA today is Bruce R. like? Elder Bednar came to mind. Although I actually like Elder Bednar, I hear what I think are odd instructions from time to time, that really are a bit silly. Two conferences ago about “not telling your family that you love them from the pulpit” or the need of “bearing a spontaneous testimony.” I realize this isn’t anything compared to McConkies “face cards” or “ouija boards,” but its stuff that makes me ask…really?…is this it? Plus, I get to hear the Bishopric before testimony meetings, tell everyone “we have been instructed to not express our love for our families over the pulpit” for the next year.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Holy crank, really? I missed that. I can’t believe people are being told not to express love for their families from ANYWHERE – even if it is “the pulpit”. Wow.

      • Carey Reply

        His point was that it shouldn’t be the only place our family heard us say that we love them, we should be saying it to them and not just in a public testimony, it doesn’t prevent you from saying it there.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Who’s point was that? It sounded clear to me: “we have been instructed to not express our love for our families over the pulpit”

          • chris

            Sheesh… you guys are so quick to get your digs in.

            I really love Elder Bednar’s talks. I remember this one. He clearly and specifically said, you should not get up and confess that you don’t tell your wife you love them very often, but you’re doing it now. His point was it is hypocritical for you to be publically professing your love and not doing it in private.

            I just went and dug up a quote from the talk to make sure I’m not remembering it wrong…

            “Sometimes in a sacrament meeting talk or testimony, we hear a statement like this: “I know I do not tell my spouse often enough how much I love her. Such an expression of love may be appropriate. But when I hear a statement like this, I squirm and silently exclaim that the spouse and children should not be hearing this apparently rare and private communication in public at church!”

            He did not say not to tell your wife you love them publically. But if it’s so rare, you shouldn’t be only saying it in public. You should love them in private and say it frequently, and not just get up and say it because people are watching.

            Please brothers and sisters, step back and consider things, have charity in considering their words and commenting on the, especially being critical. It’s ironic considering this post’s topic and the much maligned Bruce R…

          • Oz

            Chris…I’m not trying to get a “dig in” with my comment. I liked the talk and I understood what he was trying to say. But my Bishopric clearly interpreted and expresses that message before every testimony meeting. It is another example of a GA making a minor point and it being blown up by some of us who are so orthodox we turn a minor point into all out doctrinal truth. If Elder Bednar was on the stand, I think most would think twice about expressing their love to their spouses or families, they wouldn’t want Elder Bednar to “squirm.” They most likely would not do it.

          • chris

            Well, unfortunately the Bishopric jumped to the other side of the wrong conclusion if they are indeed telling people not to announce you love your spouse before testimony meeting. I know God lives and I love him, and I know he loves me and wants me to be united in love with my family, and I love them dearly is not a statement that would make anyone squirm, especially Elder Bednar. Some get offended or annoyed at Elder Bednar for his remarks others appear to take it too far.

            Testimonies shouldn’t be confessionals (such as misdeeds or confessing you don’t do X enough) or travelogues. But the love we have for each other allows us to see how much Christ loves us. If you’re really so concerned about what your Priesthood leaders are doing, as I would be, I would really go and tell them you love and sustain them, but want it to be understood that your love for the Gospel and your love for your family are indistinguishable and can not be separated. Of course… me speaking, I’d be happy to follow their counsel if they really feel its important. But I’d be surprised if a heartfelt conversation wouldn’t lead to some understanding.

            As far as this post and Bruce R. I will fully agree that he was probably too harsh and unequivocal at times. But I still think too often we are quick to be a bit argumentative just because we get annoyed with his tone.

  11. Swearing Elder Reply

    In talking about Bruce’s background you didn’t mention that he was also a lawyer. However, when you couple this fact with how young he was when he was called as a GA I think it helps explain his attitude as a GA. He only had a very short stint as a practicing attorney. Think of him as the “church’s litigator.” McConkie’s gospel is not one of love, but of laws and legalisms.

    I pulled out my copy of Mormon Doctrine and thumbed through it while listening to this episode. Take the topic of “Sex.” There is no entry for “Sex” or even “Procreation” in the book except for entries like “Sex Immorality” and “Birth Control,” both of which are, of course, evil. Oh, and under “Sexual Desires” it says, “Sex Immorality,” the same thing it says under “Sexual Perversions.” Seriously? Thanks, Brother Bruce. Glad to know there’s no “Sex MORALITY,” only “Sex IMMORALITY” according to Mormon doctrine.

    The entry for “Golden Rule” is one short paragraph.

    “Signs of the Times”? 19 pages. Nineteen pages with 51 points.

    Brother Bruce’s gospel was not one of love and “do unto others.” It was one of fear mongering and following prescribed laws.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      If you went to church this last sunday you would have heard a lesson on the Prophet Joshua in Gospel Doctrine class. If you look to the instructions he received from the Lord at the start of his Prophetic ministry you would have noticed a great emphasis on obeying th elaws and ordininaces, see Joshua 1: 2-9.

      He stated this because he loved him.

      • Glenn Reply

        Good point Mike. I did go to church this last Sunday, but I teach primary, so instead of pulling my hair out in gospel doctrine I got to tell a bunch of nine year olds all about how Joseph forgave his brothers by accusing them of being spies and returning their gold into their sacks to make them think they stole Egyptian corn and planted a silver chalice in Benjamin’s bag and had Egyptian soldiers accuse him of thievery — and the correlated primary manual said that he did all these things ‘cuz he loved them, too.

        Thankfully, even those nine-year olds could see the difference between real forgiveness and getting a little revenge on the dudes who through you in a pit. Great fun with story time though.

        • Sam Andy Reply

          Awesome, Glenn. NOM primary teachers can have quite an impact. So true about the hair loss in Gospel Doctrine.

  12. Swearing Elder Reply

    In talking about Bruce’s background you didn’t mention that he was also a lawyer. However, when you couple this fact with how young he was when he was called as a GA I think it helps explain his attitude as a GA. He only had a very short stint as a practicing attorney. Think of him as the “church’s litigator.” McConkie’s gospel is not one of love, but of laws and legalisms.

    I pulled out my copy of Mormon Doctrine and thumbed through it while listening to this episode. Take the topic of “Sex.” There is no entry for “Sex” or even “Procreation” in the book except for entries like “Sex Immorality” and “Birth Control,” both of which are, of course, evil. Oh, and under “Sexual Desires” it says, “Sex Immorality,” the same thing it says under “Sexual Perversions.” Seriously? Thanks, Brother Bruce. Glad to know there’s no “Sex MORALITY,” only “Sex IMMORALITY” according to Mormon doctrine.

    The entry for “Golden Rule” is one short paragraph.

    “Signs of the Times”? 19 pages. Nineteen pages with 51 points.

    Brother Bruce’s gospel was not one of love and “do unto others.” It was one of fear mongering and following prescribed laws.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      If you went to church this last sunday you would have heard a lesson on the Prophet Joshua in Gospel Doctrine class. If you look to the instructions he received from the Lord at the start of his Prophetic ministry you would have noticed a great emphasis on obeying th elaws and ordininaces, see Joshua 1: 2-9.

      He stated this because he loved him.

      • Glenn Reply

        Good point Mike. I did go to church this last Sunday, but I teach primary, so instead of pulling my hair out in gospel doctrine I got to tell a bunch of nine year olds all about how Joseph forgave his brothers by accusing them of being spies and returning their gold into their sacks to make them think they stole Egyptian corn and planted a silver chalice in Benjamin’s bag and had Egyptian soldiers accuse him of thievery — and the correlated primary manual said that he did all these things ‘cuz he loved them, too.

        Thankfully, even those nine-year olds could see the difference between real forgiveness and getting a little revenge on the dudes who through you in a pit. Great fun with story time though.

        • Sam Andy Reply

          Awesome, Glenn. NOM primary teachers can have quite an impact. So true about the hair loss in Gospel Doctrine.

  13. Swearing Elder Reply

    One more entry I just noticed that is too good not to mention:

    PSYCHIATRY
    See CHURCH OF THE DEVIL, PHYSICIANS

    “Treatment offered by unwise practitioners, however, sometimes has the effect of keeping sinners from repenting…” (p. 610).

    All I can say to this entry is: Holy Shit.

      • NightAvatar Reply

        Um… Maybe because… He is?

        Funny, my parents had the same view of professionals on every level, including doctors, shrinks, school teachers, scientists of any type. You name it. They were all “of the world” and pushing the devil’s agenda.

        • Zilpha Reply

          When I was struggling to decide what to major in as a freshman at BYU, my Dad specifically warned me to not take Psychology or Philosophy classes because they taught things that were contrary to the gospel and might negatively affect my testimony. After several years, I finally took both a Psychology and a Philosophy class. Dad was right. Opening my mind to other ways of processing the world and people did severely affect my testimony. And I’ve never regretted it.

          • NightAvatar

            Touché!

            My sister became a middle-school (or high-school, I forget) science teacher. She’s almost as atheist as I am.

      • Stone Reply

        Would LDS Family Services be listed here in a 2010 version? Or perhaps we have further light and knowledge now……thank goodness!!

      • scott Reply

        Hahaha… wow, Mike…

        Apart from being a dangerous generalization, it is also utterly ridiculous. Statements like this one are not only unfair to professional psychiatrists, but it also shuts out a viable option for those seeking help where untrained Church leaders are unable, and probably in some cases unwilling, to do so.

        • Swearing Elder Reply

          EXACTLY, Scott. I’m surprised anyone has to point this out, but apparently someone did…

          Again: Mike: Stand back and look at what you are saying. Seriously.

  14. Swearing Elder Reply

    One more entry I just noticed that is too good not to mention:

    PSYCHIATRY
    See CHURCH OF THE DEVIL, PHYSICIANS

    “Treatment offered by unwise practitioners, however, sometimes has the effect of keeping sinners from repenting…” (p. 610).

    All I can say to this entry is: Holy Shit.

      • NightAvatar Reply

        Um… Maybe because… He is?

        Funny, my parents had the same view of professionals on every level, including doctors, shrinks, school teachers, scientists of any type. You name it. They were all “of the world” and pushing the devil’s agenda.

        • Zilpha Reply

          When I was struggling to decide what to major in as a freshman at BYU, my Dad specifically warned me to not take Psychology or Philosophy classes because they taught things that were contrary to the gospel and might negatively affect my testimony. After several years, I finally took both a Psychology and a Philosophy class. Dad was right. Opening my mind to other ways of processing the world and people did severely affect my testimony. And I’ve never regretted it.

          • NightAvatar

            Touché!

            My sister became a middle-school (or high-school, I forget) science teacher. She’s almost as atheist as I am.

      • Stone Reply

        Would LDS Family Services be listed here in a 2010 version? Or perhaps we have further light and knowledge now……thank goodness!!

      • scott Reply

        Hahaha… wow, Mike…

        Apart from being a dangerous generalization, it is also utterly ridiculous. Statements like this one are not only unfair to professional psychiatrists, but it also shuts out a viable option for those seeking help where untrained Church leaders are unable, and probably in some cases unwilling, to do so.

        • Swearing Elder Reply

          EXACTLY, Scott. I’m surprised anyone has to point this out, but apparently someone did…

          Again: Mike: Stand back and look at what you are saying. Seriously.

  15. Joe Geisner Reply

    Thanks so much for discussing what I believe to be the most important Mormon book of the twentieth century. I did not know Deseret Book decided in March 2010 to not stock “Mormon Doctrine” in its stores. Thanks for making me aware of this news. I have to admit, I am a bit sad to see an end of an era.

    If I could be so bold, I have some comments about the podcast.

    If anyone would like to learn about why McConkie was such a powerful source of doctrine for members I would suggest they turn to the excellent article “Speaking With Authority: The Theological Influence of Bruce R. McConkie.” By David John Buerger, found in Sunstone 10 (March 1985): 8-13.

    The talk that was spoken of was given at a BYU devotional on March 2, 1982 called “Our Relationship with the Lord.” The book McConkie attacked was by George W. Pace (a very popular BYU Professor of Religion) with the title “What It Means to Know Christ” (Provo: Council Press, 1981). I sat in the audience that day. During this time I was quite good friends with Joseph Fielding McConkie, who gave me his personal copy of the talk.

    To learn about the affects of this talk on the Pace family people should turn to the two papers found in the “Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance”: Vol. 2, 1996, “Context and Analysis: “You Have Heard True Doctrine Taught”: Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s 1981-82 Addresses”, by Lavina Fielding Anderson and “McConkie and Dad: Memories, Dreams and a Rejection. A Personal Essay” by David G. Pace.

    The letter discussed by McConkie was to Professor Eugene England, who at the time was a professor at BYU. England had written to McConkie on September 4, 1980 about his concerns over McConkie’s talk “The Seven Deadly Heresies” given on June 1, 1980. McConkie wrote England back on February 19, 1981 (“This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive”) and England then responded back to McConkie on May 23, 1981.

    Much of the above material is found on the Internet. I could not find the article by David Pace and the letters by England on the Internet, but the material seems to be there. The changes between the two editions is also found on the Internet.

    As for changing doctrine between editions, I did not have to go very far into the books to find examples. Tone was softened, but to suggest no doctrinal changes is a bit naive. The Catholic Church references were major changes between the two editions. Of the 46 references to the Catholic Church in the 1958 edition, 34 were deleted, only twelve remained in the 1966 edition.

    ADAM 1958
    He was not the end-product of evolution, but came here in his glory and perfection, a son of God. He is the head of all gospel dispensations

    ADAM 1966
    He began his earth life as a son of God, endowed with the talents and abilities gained through diligence and obedience in pre-existence

    ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION 1958
    Modern medical science has made it possible for children to be conceived by ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. This practice, sometimes engaged in when a married couple is unable to have children, is morally and religiously wrong and should never be permitted, except in cases where the seed is taken from the husband of the wife involved. To inseminate seed from other then the husband is a form of immorality and indecency akin to adultery, and has been so denominated in some courts of law where gospel standards are not even at issue. Obviously such a practice throws paternity in doubt, scrambles genealogical ties, and lays the basis for discord in the family unit. Instead of turning to such an unnatural course, childless couples should seek to generate sufficient faith so that, the Lord willing, children may be born to the: accord¬ing to the normal pattern ordained by Deity. Also many childless couples find their desires of parenthood are satisfied by adopting children.

    1966 has nothing about artificial insemination.

    Under the heading “Negro” there was no change between the 1958 and 1966 editions. There was a change for this selection (heading remained “Negro” with “see Cain, Ham, Pre-existance, Priesthood, Races of Men” all remaining the same) in 1979 with the change being about Blacks holding the priesthood.

      • Gunnar R. Reply

        Mike, I would be highly interested in your reaction to the fact that in the link provided by Ooh! Chimpanzee That! James Faust expressed very nearly the same sentiments that BRM so severely chided Brother Pace for expressing. Who was wrong–BRM or Faust? Does it really matter?

        Also, BRM very strongly (in the link you provided) rejected the idea of worshipping any other entity but God the Father himself, not even Jesus Christ. Is Christ not also a God in his own right? Why then do we call this church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” instead of the “The Church of God of Latter-Day-Saints (or, perhaps, “The Church of Elohim of Latter-Day-Saints”)?

        Also (and this bothers me more every time I think of it) why do we worship and pray only to our Heavenly Father and never our Heavenly Mother? Why do people get excommunicated for even discussing Heavenly Mother? Is God a misogynistic, male chauvinist pig who can’t bear the thought of giving any credit to His wife (or wives), without whose help (according to at least what used to be Mormon Doctrine) He could not have sired us, His spiritual children? Can you imagine your own mother being content with being so thorouhly ignored by your father and their children and not given any credit at all for producing and raising you? Why do male church leaders so determinidly leave our heavenly mother(s) out of the loop?

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Thanks for your comments!

      That segment about ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION is pretty freaking amazing.

      Here is a link to an article describing a bit of the aftermath of the Pace rebuke:
      http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/public-rebuke-from-an-apostle/

      I strongly believe that religion is poison, and the LDS faith is one of the most poisonous. This type of story is exactly the kind of thing that supports my belief. Mike is another good example. As are several friends in the church (some who even call to my destruction).

      I look forward to the day when science and reason prevail over the utter ridiculous elitism and arrogance that religion breeds.

      • Carey Reply

        The terms science, and religion are just abstractions for Truth. True religion and True science are the same thing.

        We all wish to remove elitism and arrogance, which pride breeds whether you attend religious services on Sunday or the classroom on Monday.

  16. Joe Geisner Reply

    Thanks so much for discussing what I believe to be the most important Mormon book of the twentieth century. I did not know Deseret Book decided in March 2010 to not stock “Mormon Doctrine” in its stores. Thanks for making me aware of this news. I have to admit, I am a bit sad to see an end of an era.

    If I could be so bold, I have some comments about the podcast.

    If anyone would like to learn about why McConkie was such a powerful source of doctrine for members I would suggest they turn to the excellent article “Speaking With Authority: The Theological Influence of Bruce R. McConkie.” By David John Buerger, found in Sunstone 10 (March 1985): 8-13.

    The talk that was spoken of was given at a BYU devotional on March 2, 1982 called “Our Relationship with the Lord.” The book McConkie attacked was by George W. Pace (a very popular BYU Professor of Religion) with the title “What It Means to Know Christ” (Provo: Council Press, 1981). I sat in the audience that day. During this time I was quite good friends with Joseph Fielding McConkie, who gave me his personal copy of the talk.

    To learn about the affects of this talk on the Pace family people should turn to the two papers found in the “Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance”: Vol. 2, 1996, “Context and Analysis: “You Have Heard True Doctrine Taught”: Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s 1981-82 Addresses”, by Lavina Fielding Anderson and “McConkie and Dad: Memories, Dreams and a Rejection. A Personal Essay” by David G. Pace.

    The letter discussed by McConkie was to Professor Eugene England, who at the time was a professor at BYU. England had written to McConkie on September 4, 1980 about his concerns over McConkie’s talk “The Seven Deadly Heresies” given on June 1, 1980. McConkie wrote England back on February 19, 1981 (“This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive”) and England then responded back to McConkie on May 23, 1981.

    Much of the above material is found on the Internet. I could not find the article by David Pace and the letters by England on the Internet, but the material seems to be there. The changes between the two editions is also found on the Internet.

    As for changing doctrine between editions, I did not have to go very far into the books to find examples. Tone was softened, but to suggest no doctrinal changes is a bit naive. The Catholic Church references were major changes between the two editions. Of the 46 references to the Catholic Church in the 1958 edition, 34 were deleted, only twelve remained in the 1966 edition.

    ADAM 1958
    He was not the end-product of evolution, but came here in his glory and perfection, a son of God. He is the head of all gospel dispensations

    ADAM 1966
    He began his earth life as a son of God, endowed with the talents and abilities gained through diligence and obedience in pre-existence

    ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION 1958
    Modern medical science has made it possible for children to be conceived by ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. This practice, sometimes engaged in when a married couple is unable to have children, is morally and religiously wrong and should never be permitted, except in cases where the seed is taken from the husband of the wife involved. To inseminate seed from other then the husband is a form of immorality and indecency akin to adultery, and has been so denominated in some courts of law where gospel standards are not even at issue. Obviously such a practice throws paternity in doubt, scrambles genealogical ties, and lays the basis for discord in the family unit. Instead of turning to such an unnatural course, childless couples should seek to generate sufficient faith so that, the Lord willing, children may be born to the: accord¬ing to the normal pattern ordained by Deity. Also many childless couples find their desires of parenthood are satisfied by adopting children.

    1966 has nothing about artificial insemination.

    Under the heading “Negro” there was no change between the 1958 and 1966 editions. There was a change for this selection (heading remained “Negro” with “see Cain, Ham, Pre-existance, Priesthood, Races of Men” all remaining the same) in 1979 with the change being about Blacks holding the priesthood.

      • Gunnar R. Reply

        Mike, I would be highly interested in your reaction to the fact that in the link provided by Ooh! Chimpanzee That! James Faust expressed very nearly the same sentiments that BRM so severely chided Brother Pace for expressing. Who was wrong–BRM or Faust? Does it really matter?

        Also, BRM very strongly (in the link you provided) rejected the idea of worshipping any other entity but God the Father himself, not even Jesus Christ. Is Christ not also a God in his own right? Why then do we call this church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” instead of the “The Church of God of Latter-Day-Saints (or, perhaps, “The Church of Elohim of Latter-Day-Saints”)?

        Also (and this bothers me more every time I think of it) why do we worship and pray only to our Heavenly Father and never our Heavenly Mother? Why do people get excommunicated for even discussing Heavenly Mother? Is God a misogynistic, male chauvinist pig who can’t bear the thought of giving any credit to His wife (or wives), without whose help (according to at least what used to be Mormon Doctrine) He could not have sired us, His spiritual children? Can you imagine your own mother being content with being so thorouhly ignored by your father and their children and not given any credit at all for producing and raising you? Why do male church leaders so determinidly leave our heavenly mother(s) out of the loop?

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Thanks for your comments!

      That segment about ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION is pretty freaking amazing.

      Here is a link to an article describing a bit of the aftermath of the Pace rebuke:
      http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/public-rebuke-from-an-apostle/

      I strongly believe that religion is poison, and the LDS faith is one of the most poisonous. This type of story is exactly the kind of thing that supports my belief. Mike is another good example. As are several friends in the church (some who even call to my destruction).

      I look forward to the day when science and reason prevail over the utter ridiculous elitism and arrogance that religion breeds.

      • Carey Reply

        The terms science, and religion are just abstractions for Truth. True religion and True science are the same thing.

        We all wish to remove elitism and arrogance, which pride breeds whether you attend religious services on Sunday or the classroom on Monday.

  17. Erico Reply

    Undoubtedly, Mormon Doctrine is the most influential LDS book outside of the standard works. I’ve kept my 2nd edition copy for posterity so that future generations have proof of how bizarre Mormonism really was in the 20th century.

    Mike, when you say that New Testament Jesus was loving and inclusive yet is also essentially the stern, pissed off god of the Old Testament, doesn’t it make more sense that the writers of the NT were looking back through time and simply assigning the Jesus identity to the OT god so as to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine? According to the orthodox view, Jesus is a schizoid being who is forgiving the adulterous woman yet also commiting genocide against women and children. I’m not sure that even the most stern yet loving father would commit the atrocities of the OT Jesus. Hitler and the OT Jesus are not too far apart… scary.

  18. Erico Reply

    Undoubtedly, Mormon Doctrine is the most influential LDS book outside of the standard works. I’ve kept my 2nd edition copy for posterity so that future generations have proof of how bizarre Mormonism really was in the 20th century.

    Mike, when you say that New Testament Jesus was loving and inclusive yet is also essentially the stern, pissed off god of the Old Testament, doesn’t it make more sense that the writers of the NT were looking back through time and simply assigning the Jesus identity to the OT god so as to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine? According to the orthodox view, Jesus is a schizoid being who is forgiving the adulterous woman yet also commiting genocide against women and children. I’m not sure that even the most stern yet loving father would commit the atrocities of the OT Jesus. Hitler and the OT Jesus are not too far apart… scary.

  19. Stone Reply

    Mike,
    I’m not trying to be an jerk here this is a sincere question(s) for you or whomever. I give Elder McConkie all the credit for humbly admitting that further light and knowledge had been received regarding the priesthood ban. However, Joseph Smith appears to have had known from the beginning that no such ban was ever divinely given and that’s why he gave the priesthood to a black man. So was Joseph “right” or divinely inspired (gave priesthood to black man), and then the brethren wrong (by putting a “policy” ban in place to not allow blacks the priesthood), and then the brethren got it right again (when they received the 1978 revelation)?
    I am also equally impressed by his boldness that he would clearly declare that a former prophet and others in a position of divine authority were absolutely wrong on the Adam-God theory. So again the prophet at the time felt strongly that he had the truth all buttoned up and then it appears that Elder McConkie gets further light, or more light, or better light, or the true light and so now we have the correct info.
    My question for you is isn’t it possible that we just don’t really know things as black and white as we think we do? There is a laundry list of examples that I can give here – polygamy then no polyg, polyandry then no poly, united order then no united order, it’s okay to drink beer and apparently still obey the WoW and then beer is a no-no, certain temple rituals and then major changes, etc, etc, etc the list goes on and on.
    I love the church but I wonder if the exactness of a MD type book, or even the attitudes of individuals who think they know without question all things spiritual, causes unintended consequences in the church that aren’t always positive . If we have all the answers today (or had all the answers in yester-year) then why do we keep changing? Isn’t the fact that we continue to change through modern revelation proof alone that maybe we don’t have it all buttoned up today? And perhaps we never will? If so, why do we often take a position that we “know” instead of a position of seeking to understand? It appears to me that our “knowing” might not be the most effective mantra especially when otherwise faithful members come across difficult issues and their “knowing” gets blown up. I think this is why some here are actually turned off by an Elder McConkie-type personality. Does “the man” in some ways, get in the way of the more important message?

    Sorry for the book here.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Stone,
      Thanks for your questions. In regards to polygamy and polyandry, those laws are still in effect, they simply are not allowed to be practiced at this time. The ordinance and doctrine has not changed.
      The Word of Wisdom is what you might call a lesser law. If you are disobedient to the law it will keep you out of the temple, but the purpose behind it is a test of faith. Its a law that you can look to and say “I can be obedient in this small thing, so I can be obedient in the more important ones”.
      The changes in the temple ritual were not made to anything of importance. The doctrines we are intended to learn from were unaffected.

      What you need to focus on is the living prophet. Brother McConkie drew his strength by being obedient to the Priesthood leaders that he served under. He drew his strength through study of the standard works and prayer. You can strengthen your testimony by sticking to men like Brother McConkie. read the works of his son Joseph, read Robert Millet, read truman Madsen and Hugh Nibley, read Jeffrey Holland. Follow the spirit that testifys of their work and you’ll be much more comfortable with your testimony of the church.

      • Sam Andy Reply

        “The changes in the temple ritual were not made to anything of importance. The doctrines we are intended to learn from were unaffected.”

        …Cough…

        True, the overall meaning of the ceremonies has been kept intact. Without going into the gory details, and offend the sensibilities of any pre-1990 or post-1990 endowment TBM folks who might lurk here, I’ll just say that it was a good day that they removed certain things from the Endowment. However, it upsets me that generations of mormons, including my saintly grandparents 1) had to waste their time on things that (according to you) really didn’t matter, 2) had to try to find some kind of supernal meaning in things that really didn’t matter (not to mention gory and cult-like), and 3) now get to do the ceremony without any explanation of why any changes happen, wondering if some other portion of the endowment isn’t really “anything of importance” either. Might as well be doing your home teaching. At least there’s some true importance in that.

        I can anticipate your response: God had commanded it, therefore it wasn’t a waste of time or effort, and those who did so faithfully were/will be blessed for it. Yada yada yada. It doesn’t make sense, Mike. Face it. It doesn’t make sense.

        • Mike Tannehill Reply

          You should notice the language in the gory parts refered to not a “I will gut myself if I reveal these things”, but that even if they do thse things to me I will not reveal these things. There is a big difference between the two.

          That section of the program really was unnecessary and added nothing to the doctrines we are intended to learn.

          • NightAvatar

            But of course the standing up and down, bowing my head and saying “yes” multiple times, changing my robes over to the other shoulder, and all the handshakes, signs, tokens and secret names are essential and add everything to the program. Gotta love the wisdom of god’s plan!

          • Sam Andy

            Mike, that’s a faulty interpretation. As one who performed the pre-1990 ceremony several times, and committed much of it to memory, I can tell you that they were called “penalties” for a reason — possible consequences for divulging certain components of the ceremony. You’re probably too young to have done any pre-1990 endowment ceremonies yourself. Your interpretation is a convenient reasoning, and perhaps appeals to modern apologists, but it is false.

          • ABARK

            What really makes sense about the “gory” details included in earlier temple language is that Joseph included this to protect himself and his polygamous-polyadrous relationships. Since we no longer have such sensitive secrets to protect, there is no longer any need for the gory language.

      • NightAvatar Reply

        Mike,
        Then why aren’t those laws allowed to be practiced even in countries where such practice (men marrying more than one wife) is allowed? And why was it okay for The Brethren to continue to seal polygamous marriages after the manifesto? For several years in fact (I think between 15 and 20) after OD1 was released? Polygamy is a big, big problem for the church and simply brushing it off to “the doctrine has not changed” is a disservice. What exactly was the point of it? What was the point of polyandry? Why can’t you accept the possibility that it was just experimentation on Joseph’s part? Why does it have to be “The Lord’s Law” or nothing?

        I believe Emma would spit in your face.

        • Mike Tannehill Reply

          Richard,
          The first part of the question is simply answered “because the prophet said/says so.” Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.

          As to the second part, “What was/is the point of it” it has to do with that whole business of sacred names and the Abrahamic Covenant that I’ve been to lazy to do a write up on. I believe that if you do an honest inquiry into the reasoning behind marriage and the why’s and what-for’s of the Abrahamic Covenant the purposes behind polygamy become very clear.

          • NightAvatar

            Thanks for your answer. It never ceases to amaze me how completely swallowed up you are by the nonsense of this stuff. But I do sincerely appreciate your honest answers.

            Unfortunately, the problem with your reasoning is.. there is no reasoning. You simply accept that anything that comes from the top must be correct, right and good. Of course, that only works *after* one has taken the leap of faith that the church is everything it claims to be. For those who try investigating it from the outside, none of this stuff makes any sense at all.

            For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, my Muslim brother can practice polygamy but not myself if I want to join the Mormon church? Make sense to you? Oh yeah, the prophet said it so it must be god’s will.

            “Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.”

            Right. I guess you have to ignore the parts of the Book of Mormon which condemn it. And I guess Emma just never “got it”. And those teenage girls Joseph married were…

            Sorry, I can’t swallow such nonsense.

          • NightAvatar

            Gotta make a correction to this paragraph:

            “For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, my Muslim brother can practice polygamy but not myself if I want to join the Mormon church?”

            Should read:

            “For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, their Muslim neighbors can practice polygamy but not them self if they choose to join the Mormon church?”

            I really should proof read my posts.

          • Erico

            Mike Tannehill: Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.

            //

            Larry King: You condemn it.

            Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          By the way, you covered parts 1 & 2 but conveniently skipped my last questions:

          ” Why can’t you accept the possibility that it was just experimentation on Joseph’s part? Why does it have to be “The Lord’s Law” or nothing?”

          • Mike Tannehill

            Richard,
            The book of Mormon does not condemn polygamy, it condemns those who do not follow th eliving prophet. The Nephites were not permitted to practice plygamy and Jacob was speaking against those that chose to practise it without authority.

            I think that pretty much covers your last question as well. I accept Jospeh Smith as a dispensation head and I accept the prophet’s that have followed him. When you follow the prophets of your day you avoid alot of problems.

          • NightAvatar

            Wrong again, Mike. It condemns plural marriage. Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

            You must be referring to the disclaimer in verse 30: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

            But isn’t that a bit.. wrong? To excuse the church’s polygamous practices is to pretend the ONLY use for plural marriage within the church was to “raise up seed” unto the Lord. And, come on Mike, do you really believe that?

            How many children resulted from Joseph’s plural marriages? Um… Maybe zero?

          • NightAvatar

            Sorry, forgot to respond to your excellent concluding advice: “When you follow the prophets of your day you avoid alot of problems.”

            What exactly is your definition of “problems” because in my book half of the “problems” of the Saints in the early days of the church can be at least partly (if not completely) blamed on their practice of polygamy.

          • NightAvatar

            Book of Mormon on Polygamy:
            “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be ONE WIFE, and concubines he shall have none, for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, saith the Lord of hosts.” — Jacob 2:6-9

          • NightAvatar

            Sorry Mike, but one more post on polygamy. I would appreciate your comments on this well formulated expression, matching my own thoughts:

            “The LDS church’s most logical explanations for polygamy give no justification for many of Joseph’s plural marriages. If the purpose of polygamy was to “raise seed” and “bear the souls of men”, Joseph would not have married women who were already married (which he did at least eleven times). If polygamy was just a test of the woman’s faith or her family’s faith, I believe God would have stopped the test before the final act, just as He did in the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. If the purpose was for Joseph to have these women by his side in eternity, there were many other women sealed to Joseph after his death. Also, some of Joseph’s marriages can’t be justified by the belief that he held the “sealing keys,” since Joseph’s polygamy began in 1833 (Fanny Alger), but the restoration of the sealing keys by Elijah was in 1836.”
            — excerpt from resignation letter: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon546.htm

          • Mike Tannehill

            Although the Law of Moses permitted many wives and concubines, the Lord forbade the practice for the house of Joseph in the promised Land.

            The effort of some to introduce forbidden practices and to justify them by appealing to scriptural precedents (Jacob 1:15) was clearly out of order among Jacobs people.

            An appeal to ancient scripture does not justify disobedience to the counsel of the Lord’s living prophet. In saying that “whoredoms are an abomination before me” (Jacob 2:28) the Lord was not equating the principle of plural mariage with whoredoms or declaring that all such marriages – including those of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob – are abominable in his sight. he was denouncing the abuse of a sacred principle, not the principle itself.

            In regards to Joseph Smith we need to understand that there are different types of polygamy. There is the traditional time and all eternity (Emma), there is also for time and not for eternity (Fanny Alger), and eternity but not for time (Brigham Young’s sister).

            In the cases that apply to our exaltation (The Everlasting Covenant) we will be held accountable to those who were sealed to us. They will give their testimonies in regards to our upholding and maintaining the covenants we have made with them and Christ.

          • NightAvatar

            And what, exactly was the point of a “time” marriage to Fanny? Emma & Oliver saw it as a “filthy affair.” Do we have any contemporary witness who cooberates your theory?

            How does a plural marriage to a 16 year-old girl, for only “time”, bearing no offspring, without Emma or Oliver knowing about it as such, fit into the Lord’s divine plan?

  20. Stone Reply

    Mike,
    I’m not trying to be an jerk here this is a sincere question(s) for you or whomever. I give Elder McConkie all the credit for humbly admitting that further light and knowledge had been received regarding the priesthood ban. However, Joseph Smith appears to have had known from the beginning that no such ban was ever divinely given and that’s why he gave the priesthood to a black man. So was Joseph “right” or divinely inspired (gave priesthood to black man), and then the brethren wrong (by putting a “policy” ban in place to not allow blacks the priesthood), and then the brethren got it right again (when they received the 1978 revelation)?
    I am also equally impressed by his boldness that he would clearly declare that a former prophet and others in a position of divine authority were absolutely wrong on the Adam-God theory. So again the prophet at the time felt strongly that he had the truth all buttoned up and then it appears that Elder McConkie gets further light, or more light, or better light, or the true light and so now we have the correct info.
    My question for you is isn’t it possible that we just don’t really know things as black and white as we think we do? There is a laundry list of examples that I can give here – polygamy then no polyg, polyandry then no poly, united order then no united order, it’s okay to drink beer and apparently still obey the WoW and then beer is a no-no, certain temple rituals and then major changes, etc, etc, etc the list goes on and on.
    I love the church but I wonder if the exactness of a MD type book, or even the attitudes of individuals who think they know without question all things spiritual, causes unintended consequences in the church that aren’t always positive . If we have all the answers today (or had all the answers in yester-year) then why do we keep changing? Isn’t the fact that we continue to change through modern revelation proof alone that maybe we don’t have it all buttoned up today? And perhaps we never will? If so, why do we often take a position that we “know” instead of a position of seeking to understand? It appears to me that our “knowing” might not be the most effective mantra especially when otherwise faithful members come across difficult issues and their “knowing” gets blown up. I think this is why some here are actually turned off by an Elder McConkie-type personality. Does “the man” in some ways, get in the way of the more important message?

    Sorry for the book here.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Stone,
      Thanks for your questions. In regards to polygamy and polyandry, those laws are still in effect, they simply are not allowed to be practiced at this time. The ordinance and doctrine has not changed.
      The Word of Wisdom is what you might call a lesser law. If you are disobedient to the law it will keep you out of the temple, but the purpose behind it is a test of faith. Its a law that you can look to and say “I can be obedient in this small thing, so I can be obedient in the more important ones”.
      The changes in the temple ritual were not made to anything of importance. The doctrines we are intended to learn from were unaffected.

      What you need to focus on is the living prophet. Brother McConkie drew his strength by being obedient to the Priesthood leaders that he served under. He drew his strength through study of the standard works and prayer. You can strengthen your testimony by sticking to men like Brother McConkie. read the works of his son Joseph, read Robert Millet, read truman Madsen and Hugh Nibley, read Jeffrey Holland. Follow the spirit that testifys of their work and you’ll be much more comfortable with your testimony of the church.

      • Sam Andy Reply

        “The changes in the temple ritual were not made to anything of importance. The doctrines we are intended to learn from were unaffected.”

        …Cough…

        True, the overall meaning of the ceremonies has been kept intact. Without going into the gory details, and offend the sensibilities of any pre-1990 or post-1990 endowment TBM folks who might lurk here, I’ll just say that it was a good day that they removed certain things from the Endowment. However, it upsets me that generations of mormons, including my saintly grandparents 1) had to waste their time on things that (according to you) really didn’t matter, 2) had to try to find some kind of supernal meaning in things that really didn’t matter (not to mention gory and cult-like), and 3) now get to do the ceremony without any explanation of why any changes happen, wondering if some other portion of the endowment isn’t really “anything of importance” either. Might as well be doing your home teaching. At least there’s some true importance in that.

        I can anticipate your response: God had commanded it, therefore it wasn’t a waste of time or effort, and those who did so faithfully were/will be blessed for it. Yada yada yada. It doesn’t make sense, Mike. Face it. It doesn’t make sense.

        • Mike Tannehill Reply

          You should notice the language in the gory parts refered to not a “I will gut myself if I reveal these things”, but that even if they do thse things to me I will not reveal these things. There is a big difference between the two.

          That section of the program really was unnecessary and added nothing to the doctrines we are intended to learn.

          • NightAvatar

            But of course the standing up and down, bowing my head and saying “yes” multiple times, changing my robes over to the other shoulder, and all the handshakes, signs, tokens and secret names are essential and add everything to the program. Gotta love the wisdom of god’s plan!

          • Sam Andy

            Mike, that’s a faulty interpretation. As one who performed the pre-1990 ceremony several times, and committed much of it to memory, I can tell you that they were called “penalties” for a reason — possible consequences for divulging certain components of the ceremony. You’re probably too young to have done any pre-1990 endowment ceremonies yourself. Your interpretation is a convenient reasoning, and perhaps appeals to modern apologists, but it is false.

          • ABARK

            What really makes sense about the “gory” details included in earlier temple language is that Joseph included this to protect himself and his polygamous-polyadrous relationships. Since we no longer have such sensitive secrets to protect, there is no longer any need for the gory language.

      • NightAvatar Reply

        Mike,
        Then why aren’t those laws allowed to be practiced even in countries where such practice (men marrying more than one wife) is allowed? And why was it okay for The Brethren to continue to seal polygamous marriages after the manifesto? For several years in fact (I think between 15 and 20) after OD1 was released? Polygamy is a big, big problem for the church and simply brushing it off to “the doctrine has not changed” is a disservice. What exactly was the point of it? What was the point of polyandry? Why can’t you accept the possibility that it was just experimentation on Joseph’s part? Why does it have to be “The Lord’s Law” or nothing?

        I believe Emma would spit in your face.

        • Mike Tannehill Reply

          Richard,
          The first part of the question is simply answered “because the prophet said/says so.” Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.

          As to the second part, “What was/is the point of it” it has to do with that whole business of sacred names and the Abrahamic Covenant that I’ve been to lazy to do a write up on. I believe that if you do an honest inquiry into the reasoning behind marriage and the why’s and what-for’s of the Abrahamic Covenant the purposes behind polygamy become very clear.

          • NightAvatar

            Thanks for your answer. It never ceases to amaze me how completely swallowed up you are by the nonsense of this stuff. But I do sincerely appreciate your honest answers.

            Unfortunately, the problem with your reasoning is.. there is no reasoning. You simply accept that anything that comes from the top must be correct, right and good. Of course, that only works *after* one has taken the leap of faith that the church is everything it claims to be. For those who try investigating it from the outside, none of this stuff makes any sense at all.

            For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, my Muslim brother can practice polygamy but not myself if I want to join the Mormon church? Make sense to you? Oh yeah, the prophet said it so it must be god’s will.

            “Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.”

            Right. I guess you have to ignore the parts of the Book of Mormon which condemn it. And I guess Emma just never “got it”. And those teenage girls Joseph married were…

            Sorry, I can’t swallow such nonsense.

          • NightAvatar

            Gotta make a correction to this paragraph:

            “For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, my Muslim brother can practice polygamy but not myself if I want to join the Mormon church?”

            Should read:

            “For those poor souls living in South Africa, Sudan, India or some other countries, their Muslim neighbors can practice polygamy but not them self if they choose to join the Mormon church?”

            I really should proof read my posts.

          • Erico

            Mike Tannehill: Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.

            //

            Larry King: You condemn it.

            Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          By the way, you covered parts 1 & 2 but conveniently skipped my last questions:

          ” Why can’t you accept the possibility that it was just experimentation on Joseph’s part? Why does it have to be “The Lord’s Law” or nothing?”

          • Mike Tannehill

            Richard,
            The book of Mormon does not condemn polygamy, it condemns those who do not follow th eliving prophet. The Nephites were not permitted to practice plygamy and Jacob was speaking against those that chose to practise it without authority.

            I think that pretty much covers your last question as well. I accept Jospeh Smith as a dispensation head and I accept the prophet’s that have followed him. When you follow the prophets of your day you avoid alot of problems.

          • NightAvatar

            Wrong again, Mike. It condemns plural marriage. Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

            You must be referring to the disclaimer in verse 30: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

            But isn’t that a bit.. wrong? To excuse the church’s polygamous practices is to pretend the ONLY use for plural marriage within the church was to “raise up seed” unto the Lord. And, come on Mike, do you really believe that?

            How many children resulted from Joseph’s plural marriages? Um… Maybe zero?

          • NightAvatar

            Sorry, forgot to respond to your excellent concluding advice: “When you follow the prophets of your day you avoid alot of problems.”

            What exactly is your definition of “problems” because in my book half of the “problems” of the Saints in the early days of the church can be at least partly (if not completely) blamed on their practice of polygamy.

          • NightAvatar

            Book of Mormon on Polygamy:
            “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be ONE WIFE, and concubines he shall have none, for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, saith the Lord of hosts.” — Jacob 2:6-9

          • NightAvatar

            Sorry Mike, but one more post on polygamy. I would appreciate your comments on this well formulated expression, matching my own thoughts:

            “The LDS church’s most logical explanations for polygamy give no justification for many of Joseph’s plural marriages. If the purpose of polygamy was to “raise seed” and “bear the souls of men”, Joseph would not have married women who were already married (which he did at least eleven times). If polygamy was just a test of the woman’s faith or her family’s faith, I believe God would have stopped the test before the final act, just as He did in the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. If the purpose was for Joseph to have these women by his side in eternity, there were many other women sealed to Joseph after his death. Also, some of Joseph’s marriages can’t be justified by the belief that he held the “sealing keys,” since Joseph’s polygamy began in 1833 (Fanny Alger), but the restoration of the sealing keys by Elijah was in 1836.”
            — excerpt from resignation letter: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon546.htm

          • Mike Tannehill

            Although the Law of Moses permitted many wives and concubines, the Lord forbade the practice for the house of Joseph in the promised Land.

            The effort of some to introduce forbidden practices and to justify them by appealing to scriptural precedents (Jacob 1:15) was clearly out of order among Jacobs people.

            An appeal to ancient scripture does not justify disobedience to the counsel of the Lord’s living prophet. In saying that “whoredoms are an abomination before me” (Jacob 2:28) the Lord was not equating the principle of plural mariage with whoredoms or declaring that all such marriages – including those of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob – are abominable in his sight. he was denouncing the abuse of a sacred principle, not the principle itself.

            In regards to Joseph Smith we need to understand that there are different types of polygamy. There is the traditional time and all eternity (Emma), there is also for time and not for eternity (Fanny Alger), and eternity but not for time (Brigham Young’s sister).

            In the cases that apply to our exaltation (The Everlasting Covenant) we will be held accountable to those who were sealed to us. They will give their testimonies in regards to our upholding and maintaining the covenants we have made with them and Christ.

          • NightAvatar

            And what, exactly was the point of a “time” marriage to Fanny? Emma & Oliver saw it as a “filthy affair.” Do we have any contemporary witness who cooberates your theory?

            How does a plural marriage to a 16 year-old girl, for only “time”, bearing no offspring, without Emma or Oliver knowing about it as such, fit into the Lord’s divine plan?

  21. Sam Andy Reply

    John – you mentioned that Elder McConkie’s last testimony has a fascinating back story. Can you share it with us or point us to an online reference? I distinctly remember that talk and was deeply moved by it at the time.

  22. Sam Andy Reply

    John – you mentioned that Elder McConkie’s last testimony has a fascinating back story. Can you share it with us or point us to an online reference? I distinctly remember that talk and was deeply moved by it at the time.

  23. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    Hey Mike, Bruce R. is capable of being wrong…you need not defend things that are crazy, particularly things that aren’t essential to salvation. Although I understand why you do and why your view can never be wrong and why you aren’t being prideful in saying so…I have been to that degree of MD belief and living. So, i CAN empathize with you, however, my view is different these days and I can and do see different shades of reality…as do many of the cats here that have bones to pick with you. For me, it’s hard to hear the things you say at times because it hits too close to home for me as the way I used to be…which ultimately made me very unhappy (me, not you).
    That said, I think it is time that another true believer steps up to the plate for some more variety to the discussion (in addition to Mike). Mike, in my view, is more right than Nyal is left…and Nyal doesn’t come on very often anymore. Almost every TBM I know is way more centered in belief and views…they just have no idea about the tougher issues regarding the church. Is that the problem: anyone who is is informed is either not a TBM, or have to create or stay in McConkie land to survive?

    • Me_MyZelph_And_I Reply

      I agree! Mike is way too far right! There have to be other TBMs out there that can participate on this podcast that are not so militant right.

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        A liberal Mormon is about as useful as a half full spare tire.
        If a straight and true Mormon was to step up and ask to replace me I would gladly step down. I recognise my weaknesses on the program in regards to my being inarticulate and having a poor memory.
        I dont think a “liberal’ faithful voice would add anything to the show. Liberal means someone with skepticism and doubt, those things in place of faith and hope are no good to anyone.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Mike, your weakness on the program is not that you are inarticulate or have a poor memory. It’s that you see things so black & white and “know” you are always right and anybody who disagrees is always wrong. That is not very representative of The Brethren – at least not as I see them – though it may be representative of True Believers farther down the totem pole.

          I think anybody who has served in callings higher up, and has been around a bit, loses their black/white mentality and realizes things aren’t all as members like Mike think. There are nuances of grey mixed in that can not be denied, when one pulls one’s head out of the trees and views the whole forest.

        • Rich Rasmussen Reply

          I think there is room and need for Mike’s voice (as he represents a small population of Mormon thought). I just think that there needs to be a voice of a TBM that is more centered to what I perceive the general, not blogging/discussion board, Mormon population to be…kind of a mix between Tom and Mike (a Tike…awwww). Where Tom seems to be a 65% cafeteria grazer and Mike a 120% pedometer checker I sense a large gap of representation.

          I just don’t know of anyone that fits that general level of belief AND is aware of the all the issues surrounding Mormonism. It seems the disconnect that occurs when someone truly investigates the church yields a militant Mike, or a doubting Doug (in my sliver of experience) and those voices are well represented here.

          So my question is, is there such a Mormon?

        • Chino Blanco Reply

          And a conservative Mormon who identifies as LDS is always already a half full spare tire as far as Mormonism is concerned.

  24. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    Hey Mike, Bruce R. is capable of being wrong…you need not defend things that are crazy, particularly things that aren’t essential to salvation. Although I understand why you do and why your view can never be wrong and why you aren’t being prideful in saying so…I have been to that degree of MD belief and living. So, i CAN empathize with you, however, my view is different these days and I can and do see different shades of reality…as do many of the cats here that have bones to pick with you. For me, it’s hard to hear the things you say at times because it hits too close to home for me as the way I used to be…which ultimately made me very unhappy (me, not you).
    That said, I think it is time that another true believer steps up to the plate for some more variety to the discussion (in addition to Mike). Mike, in my view, is more right than Nyal is left…and Nyal doesn’t come on very often anymore. Almost every TBM I know is way more centered in belief and views…they just have no idea about the tougher issues regarding the church. Is that the problem: anyone who is is informed is either not a TBM, or have to create or stay in McConkie land to survive?

    • Me_MyZelph_And_I Reply

      I agree! Mike is way too far right! There have to be other TBMs out there that can participate on this podcast that are not so militant right.

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        A liberal Mormon is about as useful as a half full spare tire.
        If a straight and true Mormon was to step up and ask to replace me I would gladly step down. I recognise my weaknesses on the program in regards to my being inarticulate and having a poor memory.
        I dont think a “liberal’ faithful voice would add anything to the show. Liberal means someone with skepticism and doubt, those things in place of faith and hope are no good to anyone.

        • NightAvatar Reply

          Mike, your weakness on the program is not that you are inarticulate or have a poor memory. It’s that you see things so black & white and “know” you are always right and anybody who disagrees is always wrong. That is not very representative of The Brethren – at least not as I see them – though it may be representative of True Believers farther down the totem pole.

          I think anybody who has served in callings higher up, and has been around a bit, loses their black/white mentality and realizes things aren’t all as members like Mike think. There are nuances of grey mixed in that can not be denied, when one pulls one’s head out of the trees and views the whole forest.

        • Rich Rasmussen Reply

          I think there is room and need for Mike’s voice (as he represents a small population of Mormon thought). I just think that there needs to be a voice of a TBM that is more centered to what I perceive the general, not blogging/discussion board, Mormon population to be…kind of a mix between Tom and Mike (a Tike…awwww). Where Tom seems to be a 65% cafeteria grazer and Mike a 120% pedometer checker I sense a large gap of representation.

          I just don’t know of anyone that fits that general level of belief AND is aware of the all the issues surrounding Mormonism. It seems the disconnect that occurs when someone truly investigates the church yields a militant Mike, or a doubting Doug (in my sliver of experience) and those voices are well represented here.

          So my question is, is there such a Mormon?

        • Chino Blanco Reply

          And a conservative Mormon who identifies as LDS is always already a half full spare tire as far as Mormonism is concerned.

  25. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Hey guys I’ve been listening to the podcast for a little while now and find it entertaining but I find that if often suffers from a serious lack of fact checking / historical accuracy. There were a number of issues with the discussion about Mormon Doctrine; the first one concerned the letter to Eugene England.

    The issue at hand in the letter was the issues of God’s progress. England had written a paper titled “The Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse” and sent it to McConkie. The letter from McConkie expressed McConkie’s extreme disapproval with the idea that God could still be progressing. The SDH talk is mentioned by McConkie in the letter but what McConkie is responding to is England’s theology that has God progressing. And a few other points.
    One of the things that I find most interesting about McConkie’s letter is his appeal to scriptures. It represents a very Protestant move on his part, He writes:

    “Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and the rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

    Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.”

    Its quite remarkable to see and LDS leader stating the what the Prophet says can be measured by its compliance with scripture. It potentially complicates revelation a great deal. It may be that BRK saw a distinction between teachings and revelations. I don’t know. He certainly took his own teachings as authoritative regardless of their relation to scripture.

    One more thought. The entry on Doubt was mentioned briefly in the podcast but it deserves a lot more attention. First, BRK is stating what was or has become a standard form of Mormon dualism, that tries to make assurances into certainties, and sees doubt as the antithesis of faith. But what doubt is or isn’t, is not even addressed. It is remarkable how BRK and so many others not only misunderstand the relation between faith and doubt but that they don’t even see that there is a relationship there. For them faith is equated with epistemological fact. Which of course an open attempt to empty faith of faith. Second, I am unaware of this being anymore than a common cultural belief among us Mormons. I think one would be hard pressed to make a consistent scriptural argument for this view of doubt. In other words, its not doctrine.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Douglas,
      I think everyone involved in the podcast did do their homework for the podcast, the problem is that in reviewing both McConkies life and the impact of Mormon Doctrine its hard to be prepared for everything that can come up. I know I mistated some facts in regards to the “relationship with Christ” talk that he gave. Joe Geisner corrected me in an earlier post here.

      John has expressed a desire to review Elder McConkie’s “Seven Deadly Heresies” talk, so a few of these issues may come up again in that podcast. Perhaps we could even invite you on to participate in that one.

      • Alf O'Mega Reply

        “I think everyone involved in the podcast did do their homework for the podcast, the problem is that in reviewing both McConkies life and the impact of Mormon Doctrine its hard to be prepared for everything that can come up. I know I mistated some facts in regards to the ‘relationship with Christ’ talk that he gave.”

        Forget everything that I have said, or what John Larson or Glenn Ostlund or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present thread. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

  26. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Hey guys I’ve been listening to the podcast for a little while now and find it entertaining but I find that if often suffers from a serious lack of fact checking / historical accuracy. There were a number of issues with the discussion about Mormon Doctrine; the first one concerned the letter to Eugene England.

    The issue at hand in the letter was the issues of God’s progress. England had written a paper titled “The Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse” and sent it to McConkie. The letter from McConkie expressed McConkie’s extreme disapproval with the idea that God could still be progressing. The SDH talk is mentioned by McConkie in the letter but what McConkie is responding to is England’s theology that has God progressing. And a few other points.
    One of the things that I find most interesting about McConkie’s letter is his appeal to scriptures. It represents a very Protestant move on his part, He writes:

    “Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and the rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

    Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.”

    Its quite remarkable to see and LDS leader stating the what the Prophet says can be measured by its compliance with scripture. It potentially complicates revelation a great deal. It may be that BRK saw a distinction between teachings and revelations. I don’t know. He certainly took his own teachings as authoritative regardless of their relation to scripture.

    One more thought. The entry on Doubt was mentioned briefly in the podcast but it deserves a lot more attention. First, BRK is stating what was or has become a standard form of Mormon dualism, that tries to make assurances into certainties, and sees doubt as the antithesis of faith. But what doubt is or isn’t, is not even addressed. It is remarkable how BRK and so many others not only misunderstand the relation between faith and doubt but that they don’t even see that there is a relationship there. For them faith is equated with epistemological fact. Which of course an open attempt to empty faith of faith. Second, I am unaware of this being anymore than a common cultural belief among us Mormons. I think one would be hard pressed to make a consistent scriptural argument for this view of doubt. In other words, its not doctrine.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Douglas,
      I think everyone involved in the podcast did do their homework for the podcast, the problem is that in reviewing both McConkies life and the impact of Mormon Doctrine its hard to be prepared for everything that can come up. I know I mistated some facts in regards to the “relationship with Christ” talk that he gave. Joe Geisner corrected me in an earlier post here.

      John has expressed a desire to review Elder McConkie’s “Seven Deadly Heresies” talk, so a few of these issues may come up again in that podcast. Perhaps we could even invite you on to participate in that one.

      • Alf O'Mega Reply

        “I think everyone involved in the podcast did do their homework for the podcast, the problem is that in reviewing both McConkies life and the impact of Mormon Doctrine its hard to be prepared for everything that can come up. I know I mistated some facts in regards to the ‘relationship with Christ’ talk that he gave.”

        Forget everything that I have said, or what John Larson or Glenn Ostlund or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present thread. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

  27. pwmz Reply

    Mike
    “Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.”
    Ezra
    “I think it’s not doctrinal.”

    Doug
    “…Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe…”
    Me
    Prophets – select all, apply.

  28. pwmz Reply

    Mike
    “Polygamy was, is, and always will be an active doctrine.”
    Ezra
    “I think it’s not doctrinal.”

    Doug
    “…Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe…”
    Me
    Prophets – select all, apply.

  29. Mister IT Reply

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    I’m so pleased that you all honored Mormonism’s last truly honest Theologian like this. I miss Bruce R. McConkie and respect his incredible integrity – even though he and I are polar opposites on just about everything imaginable.

    However I find it tragically ironic that the demise of Bruce R’s great and classic opus is laying in it’s grave underneath a mountain of lies by Church-owned Deseret Books!

    As Bill McKeever observes:

    “Though hardly a scientific analysis, it is curious to note that on Amazon.com Mormon Doctrine still enjoys a moderate sales ranking of 209,180. This is higher than other LDS books that are still in print, including: Faith Precedes the Miracle (#244,876), Answers to Gospel Questions (#700,130 ), Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (#590,328), Are Mormons Christian? (#659,996), and volume one of the Joseph Smith Papers (#412,561).”
    (see http://blog.mrm.org/2010/05/mormon-doctrine/ )

    And Aaron Shafovaloff opines:

    “What’s the REAL reason it was stopped?

    1) Tighter correlative control
    2) Because of the book’s embarrassing clarity
    3) Because of some controversial assertions in the book

    Low sales? What a cowardly lie.”
    (http://blog.mrm.org/2010/05/mormon-doctrine/ )

    So perhaps Orson Pratt can be of some consolation to our dear Bruce since, really, all we have here is history repeating itself – Pratt’s “The Seer” in his day and Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” in ours.

    “The more things change the more they stay the same.”

  30. Mister IT Reply

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    I’m so pleased that you all honored Mormonism’s last truly honest Theologian like this. I miss Bruce R. McConkie and respect his incredible integrity – even though he and I are polar opposites on just about everything imaginable.

    However I find it tragically ironic that the demise of Bruce R’s great and classic opus is laying in it’s grave underneath a mountain of lies by Church-owned Deseret Books!

    As Bill McKeever observes:

    “Though hardly a scientific analysis, it is curious to note that on Amazon.com Mormon Doctrine still enjoys a moderate sales ranking of 209,180. This is higher than other LDS books that are still in print, including: Faith Precedes the Miracle (#244,876), Answers to Gospel Questions (#700,130 ), Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (#590,328), Are Mormons Christian? (#659,996), and volume one of the Joseph Smith Papers (#412,561).”
    (see http://blog.mrm.org/2010/05/mormon-doctrine/ )

    And Aaron Shafovaloff opines:

    “What’s the REAL reason it was stopped?

    1) Tighter correlative control
    2) Because of the book’s embarrassing clarity
    3) Because of some controversial assertions in the book

    Low sales? What a cowardly lie.”
    (http://blog.mrm.org/2010/05/mormon-doctrine/ )

    So perhaps Orson Pratt can be of some consolation to our dear Bruce since, really, all we have here is history repeating itself – Pratt’s “The Seer” in his day and Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” in ours.

    “The more things change the more they stay the same.”

  31. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Mike- My comment was general in nature so its not something that just struck me about this episode, there have been many examples. Further, I am far from an expert on BRM so I would not be an appropriate guest to discuss such topics.

    pwmz- just to be clear those were not my words, that was a direct quote from BRM.

  32. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Mike- My comment was general in nature so its not something that just struck me about this episode, there have been many examples. Further, I am far from an expert on BRM so I would not be an appropriate guest to discuss such topics.

    pwmz- just to be clear those were not my words, that was a direct quote from BRM.

  33. chris Reply

    I don’t have much of a beef one way or the other with the book, never having read it. I do take issue with people being so quick to speak uncharitably of one of the Lord’s annointed servants, something I assume many of us have covenanted not to do.

    I don’t really understand the huge controversy with Bruce R. not being authorized to make the book on behalf of the church. While that’s certainly true, I think if the Lord was displeased with his servant or if the rest of the First Presidency was upset or very opposed to him, he would not have been called. I suppose it’s likely, I’ll grant that. But really, I have a hard time believing he would be called to that position after supposedly acting so flaggrantly and according to some posters here, incorrectly.

    Like I said, I suppose it’s possible the Lord will call people who widely publish and promote what is apparently false doctrine. I think I can actually learn something about the Lord from that. But it’s not something I really give credence to.

  34. chris Reply

    I don’t have much of a beef one way or the other with the book, never having read it. I do take issue with people being so quick to speak uncharitably of one of the Lord’s annointed servants, something I assume many of us have covenanted not to do.

    I don’t really understand the huge controversy with Bruce R. not being authorized to make the book on behalf of the church. While that’s certainly true, I think if the Lord was displeased with his servant or if the rest of the First Presidency was upset or very opposed to him, he would not have been called. I suppose it’s likely, I’ll grant that. But really, I have a hard time believing he would be called to that position after supposedly acting so flaggrantly and according to some posters here, incorrectly.

    Like I said, I suppose it’s possible the Lord will call people who widely publish and promote what is apparently false doctrine. I think I can actually learn something about the Lord from that. But it’s not something I really give credence to.

  35. Mister IT Reply

    I just noticed that someone asked for BRM’s last talk/testimony and no one delivered it, so let me oblige:

    The Purifying Power of Gethsemane
    Elder Bruce R. McConkie
    Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
    Ensign, May 1985, 9

    I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity.

    It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform. Through it, all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation became operative.

    Through it are brought to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Through it, all men are saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment.

    And through it, all who believe and obey the glorious gospel of God, all who are true and faithful and overcome the world, all who suffer for Christ and his word, all who are chastened and scourged in the Cause of him whose we are—all shall become as their Maker and sit with him on his throne and reign with him forever in everlasting glory.

    In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.

    True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word.

    Two thousand years ago, outside Jerusalem’s walls, there was a pleasant garden spot, Gethsemane by name, where Jesus and his intimate friends were wont to retire for pondering and prayer.

    There Jesus taught his disciples the doctrines of the kingdom, and all of them communed with Him who is the Father of us all, in whose ministry they were engaged, and on whose errand they served.

    This sacred spot, like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from whence Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the Sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance.

    We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

    We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

    We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

    We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

    We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup.

    We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.

    As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare—continued for some three or four hours.

    After this—his body then wrenched and drained of strength—he confronted Judas and the other incarnate devils, some from the very Sanhedrin itself; and he was led away with a rope around his neck, as a common criminal, to be judged by the arch-criminals who as Jews sat in Aaron’s seat and who as Romans wielded Caesar’s power.

    They took him to Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and back to Pilate. He was accused, cursed, and smitten. Their foul saliva ran down his face as vicious blows further weakened his pain-engulfed body.

    With reeds of wrath they rained blows upon his back. Blood ran down his face as a crown of thorns pierced his trembling brow.

    But above it all he was scourged, scourged with forty stripes save one, scourged with a multithonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.

    Many died from scourging alone, but he rose from the sufferings of the scourge that he might die an ignominious death upon the cruel cross of Calvary.

    Then he carried his own cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.

    Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

    With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

    Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon.

    Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

    And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

    And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of his Father in all things—then he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

    As the peace and comfort of a merciful death freed him from the pains and sorrows of mortality, he entered the paradise of God.

    When he had made his soul an offering for sin, he was prepared to see his seed, according to the messianic word.

    These, consisting of all the holy prophets and faithful Saints from ages past; these, comprising all who had taken upon them his name, and who, being spiritually begotten by him, had become his sons and his daughters, even as it is with us; all these were assembled in the spirit world, there to see his face and hear his voice.

    After some thirty-eight or forty hours—three days as the Jews measured time—our Blessed Lord came to the Arimathaean’s tomb, where his partially embalmed body had been placed by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea.

    Then, in a way incomprehensible to us, he took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose in that glorious immortality which made him like his resurrected Father.

    He then received all power in heaven and on earth, obtained eternal exaltation, appeared unto Mary Magdalene and many others, and ascended into heaven, there to sit down on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and to reign forever in eternal glory.

    His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way incomprehensible to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men so that all shall rise from the grave.

    As Adam brought death, so Christ brought life; as Adam is the father of mortality, so Christ is the father of immortality.

    And without both, mortality and immortality, man cannot work out his salvation and ascend to those heights beyond the skies where gods and angels dwell forever in eternal glory.

    Now, the atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.

    Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

    But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

    May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

    We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.

    We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.

    As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

    In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

    We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

    We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

    Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

    Then in Gethsemane we will see the Son of God ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death that came to us because of the Fall.

    And finally, before an empty tomb, we will come to know that Christ our Lord has burst the bands of death and stands forever triumphant over the grave.

    Thus, Creation is father to the Fall; and by the Fall came mortality and death; and by Christ came immortality and eternal life.

    If there had been no fall of Adam, by which cometh death, there could have been no atonement of Christ, by which cometh life.

    And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

    I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

    But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

    God grant that all of us may walk in the light as God our Father is in the light so that, according to the promises, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son will cleanse us from all sin.

    In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

    (source = http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20may%201985%20.htm/the%20purifying%20power%20of%20gethsemane.htm )

  36. Mister IT Reply

    I just noticed that someone asked for BRM’s last talk/testimony and no one delivered it, so let me oblige:

    The Purifying Power of Gethsemane
    Elder Bruce R. McConkie
    Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
    Ensign, May 1985, 9

    I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity.

    It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform. Through it, all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation became operative.

    Through it are brought to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Through it, all men are saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment.

    And through it, all who believe and obey the glorious gospel of God, all who are true and faithful and overcome the world, all who suffer for Christ and his word, all who are chastened and scourged in the Cause of him whose we are—all shall become as their Maker and sit with him on his throne and reign with him forever in everlasting glory.

    In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.

    True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word.

    Two thousand years ago, outside Jerusalem’s walls, there was a pleasant garden spot, Gethsemane by name, where Jesus and his intimate friends were wont to retire for pondering and prayer.

    There Jesus taught his disciples the doctrines of the kingdom, and all of them communed with Him who is the Father of us all, in whose ministry they were engaged, and on whose errand they served.

    This sacred spot, like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from whence Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the Sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance.

    We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

    We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

    We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

    We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

    We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup.

    We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.

    As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare—continued for some three or four hours.

    After this—his body then wrenched and drained of strength—he confronted Judas and the other incarnate devils, some from the very Sanhedrin itself; and he was led away with a rope around his neck, as a common criminal, to be judged by the arch-criminals who as Jews sat in Aaron’s seat and who as Romans wielded Caesar’s power.

    They took him to Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and back to Pilate. He was accused, cursed, and smitten. Their foul saliva ran down his face as vicious blows further weakened his pain-engulfed body.

    With reeds of wrath they rained blows upon his back. Blood ran down his face as a crown of thorns pierced his trembling brow.

    But above it all he was scourged, scourged with forty stripes save one, scourged with a multithonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.

    Many died from scourging alone, but he rose from the sufferings of the scourge that he might die an ignominious death upon the cruel cross of Calvary.

    Then he carried his own cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.

    Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

    With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

    Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon.

    Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

    And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

    And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of his Father in all things—then he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

    As the peace and comfort of a merciful death freed him from the pains and sorrows of mortality, he entered the paradise of God.

    When he had made his soul an offering for sin, he was prepared to see his seed, according to the messianic word.

    These, consisting of all the holy prophets and faithful Saints from ages past; these, comprising all who had taken upon them his name, and who, being spiritually begotten by him, had become his sons and his daughters, even as it is with us; all these were assembled in the spirit world, there to see his face and hear his voice.

    After some thirty-eight or forty hours—three days as the Jews measured time—our Blessed Lord came to the Arimathaean’s tomb, where his partially embalmed body had been placed by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea.

    Then, in a way incomprehensible to us, he took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose in that glorious immortality which made him like his resurrected Father.

    He then received all power in heaven and on earth, obtained eternal exaltation, appeared unto Mary Magdalene and many others, and ascended into heaven, there to sit down on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and to reign forever in eternal glory.

    His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way incomprehensible to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men so that all shall rise from the grave.

    As Adam brought death, so Christ brought life; as Adam is the father of mortality, so Christ is the father of immortality.

    And without both, mortality and immortality, man cannot work out his salvation and ascend to those heights beyond the skies where gods and angels dwell forever in eternal glory.

    Now, the atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths.

    Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

    But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

    May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

    We must cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.

    We must search the scriptures, accepting them as the mind and will and voice of the Lord and the very power of God unto salvation.

    As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

    In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

    We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

    We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

    Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

    Then in Gethsemane we will see the Son of God ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death that came to us because of the Fall.

    And finally, before an empty tomb, we will come to know that Christ our Lord has burst the bands of death and stands forever triumphant over the grave.

    Thus, Creation is father to the Fall; and by the Fall came mortality and death; and by Christ came immortality and eternal life.

    If there had been no fall of Adam, by which cometh death, there could have been no atonement of Christ, by which cometh life.

    And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

    I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

    But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

    God grant that all of us may walk in the light as God our Father is in the light so that, according to the promises, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son will cleanse us from all sin.

    In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

    (source = http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20may%201985%20.htm/the%20purifying%20power%20of%20gethsemane.htm )

  37. tim Reply

    Hi, I am surprised that no one has a copy of the actual report sent to President McKay from Romney (but compiled by both Peterson and Romney.) I have a mimeographed copy of that letter identifying more than 1,000 errors. I also have the copy of McKay’s diary from late 1959 to early 1960 which exposes an even more damning comdemnation of the book.

    If for nothing else, I thought I would mention that because Mike’s comments should really be taken with a grain, or two of salt. At least.

    A couple of tidbits from the letter:

    …Had the work been authoritatively supervised some of the following matters might have emitted and the treatment of others modified…”

    The report then goes on to list pages and pages of quotes that need to be edited.

    From McKay’s diary, this is a gem:

    “…Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book…

    Funny stuff.

    If John wants images of these to upload, he should contact gramps through the MDB board.

  38. tim Reply

    Hi, I am surprised that no one has a copy of the actual report sent to President McKay from Romney (but compiled by both Peterson and Romney.) I have a mimeographed copy of that letter identifying more than 1,000 errors. I also have the copy of McKay’s diary from late 1959 to early 1960 which exposes an even more damning comdemnation of the book.

    If for nothing else, I thought I would mention that because Mike’s comments should really be taken with a grain, or two of salt. At least.

    A couple of tidbits from the letter:

    …Had the work been authoritatively supervised some of the following matters might have emitted and the treatment of others modified…”

    The report then goes on to list pages and pages of quotes that need to be edited.

    From McKay’s diary, this is a gem:

    “…Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book…

    Funny stuff.

    If John wants images of these to upload, he should contact gramps through the MDB board.

  39. DDR Reply

    My Favorite quote by mike:

    “Its not Elitism, its truth. If it offends you that might have more to do with you than the topic your upset about.”

    Unicorns are TRUE. If you are offended by that Mike it has more to do with you than unicorns so deal with it!!!!

    Good Grief man. Just cause you say it isn’t truth doesn’t mean squat to anyone else including someone that agrees with you. All this stuff is speculation and thoughts of men. Some can be good some are crazy but truth is something that can be proven. Not something someone calls Truth. That includes me you and anyone else.

    One thing that is consistent. Mike doesn’t disappoint. It is almost like he has some handbook telling him what to think…..:-)

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      As you said “All this stuff is speculation and thoughts of men.” This is almost certainly true. GA’s are fond of warning us to beware of being taken in by the thoughts and doctrines of men. This is actually very good advice because it is undeniably true that we humans are not infallible, and too many of us are all too eager to take unfair advantage of the weak, fearful and gullible among us. Even some of the best of us are sometimes taken in by clever charlatans and/or sincerely mistaken zealots (the worst of which are often the religious ones).

      Unfortunately, it is very far from established beyond all reasonable doubt that there are any thoughts and doctrines available to us that are NOT of men! As far as I am concerned, the more exclusively one has to rely on subjective, religious faith or claims of divine authority alone to support or maintain belief in a particular doctrine, the less likely it is to be true.

  40. DDR Reply

    My Favorite quote by mike:

    “Its not Elitism, its truth. If it offends you that might have more to do with you than the topic your upset about.”

    Unicorns are TRUE. If you are offended by that Mike it has more to do with you than unicorns so deal with it!!!!

    Good Grief man. Just cause you say it isn’t truth doesn’t mean squat to anyone else including someone that agrees with you. All this stuff is speculation and thoughts of men. Some can be good some are crazy but truth is something that can be proven. Not something someone calls Truth. That includes me you and anyone else.

    One thing that is consistent. Mike doesn’t disappoint. It is almost like he has some handbook telling him what to think…..:-)

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      As you said “All this stuff is speculation and thoughts of men.” This is almost certainly true. GA’s are fond of warning us to beware of being taken in by the thoughts and doctrines of men. This is actually very good advice because it is undeniably true that we humans are not infallible, and too many of us are all too eager to take unfair advantage of the weak, fearful and gullible among us. Even some of the best of us are sometimes taken in by clever charlatans and/or sincerely mistaken zealots (the worst of which are often the religious ones).

      Unfortunately, it is very far from established beyond all reasonable doubt that there are any thoughts and doctrines available to us that are NOT of men! As far as I am concerned, the more exclusively one has to rely on subjective, religious faith or claims of divine authority alone to support or maintain belief in a particular doctrine, the less likely it is to be true.

  41. DDR Reply

    Gunnar R. That is exactly what I was saying. Calling opinions or theories or crazy justifications for their world view doesn’t mean BRM or any leader is speaking truth.

    In my opinion there is more evidence that Unicorns exist that in the BOM. The reason I say that is there is much proof to the contrary of the the BOM says where in Unicorns have never wrote a book so they haven’t “Self Incriminated themselves” so to speak. So does this mean unicorns are TRUTH. No. Until I can show someone a unicorn it is just my opinion or theory. Nothing more.

    I have no problem discussing these topics as ideas etc. And even trying to gleam good from some of them. But I think it is very narrow minded to go around say stuff like Mike (Well Mike is saying what leaders say so I won’t blame him completely) says and trying to claim it as TRUTH.

    That being said I remember back in the day thinking the same way. I can only hope the people I was offensive too and looked down upon can forgive me for my narrow minded view of the world.

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      DDR, I realize that is exactly what you were saying, and fully agree with you on every point. My comments were only meant to reinforce what you had already said.

      As for unicorns, of course they exist! Only nowadays we call them “narwhales.” 🙂

      Incidently, contrary to what many believe, even the Bible does not really support the existence of unicorns. The word unicorn first appeared in the Greek Septuagent translation of the scriptures. It is how the Greek scholars doing the translation translated the Hebrew word “rhe’em” (or something like that). The translators of the King James Bible had no idea what that Hebrew word meant, so they just borrowed the word “unicorn” from the Greek. Modern scholarship has established that “rhe’em” referred to a species of wild ox well known to the original Hebrew authors of The Old Testament books, but which had already been hunted to extinction by the Assyrians and others by the time the Greek Septuagent translation was begun. This wild ox species is very likely the ancestral species of today’s domestic bovines. Isaac Asimov wrote an interesting explanation of how the Greeks came to call it a “unicorn” in his Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, even though it actually had two horns–just like today’s cattle.

  42. DDR Reply

    Gunnar R. That is exactly what I was saying. Calling opinions or theories or crazy justifications for their world view doesn’t mean BRM or any leader is speaking truth.

    In my opinion there is more evidence that Unicorns exist that in the BOM. The reason I say that is there is much proof to the contrary of the the BOM says where in Unicorns have never wrote a book so they haven’t “Self Incriminated themselves” so to speak. So does this mean unicorns are TRUTH. No. Until I can show someone a unicorn it is just my opinion or theory. Nothing more.

    I have no problem discussing these topics as ideas etc. And even trying to gleam good from some of them. But I think it is very narrow minded to go around say stuff like Mike (Well Mike is saying what leaders say so I won’t blame him completely) says and trying to claim it as TRUTH.

    That being said I remember back in the day thinking the same way. I can only hope the people I was offensive too and looked down upon can forgive me for my narrow minded view of the world.

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      DDR, I realize that is exactly what you were saying, and fully agree with you on every point. My comments were only meant to reinforce what you had already said.

      As for unicorns, of course they exist! Only nowadays we call them “narwhales.” 🙂

      Incidently, contrary to what many believe, even the Bible does not really support the existence of unicorns. The word unicorn first appeared in the Greek Septuagent translation of the scriptures. It is how the Greek scholars doing the translation translated the Hebrew word “rhe’em” (or something like that). The translators of the King James Bible had no idea what that Hebrew word meant, so they just borrowed the word “unicorn” from the Greek. Modern scholarship has established that “rhe’em” referred to a species of wild ox well known to the original Hebrew authors of The Old Testament books, but which had already been hunted to extinction by the Assyrians and others by the time the Greek Septuagent translation was begun. This wild ox species is very likely the ancestral species of today’s domestic bovines. Isaac Asimov wrote an interesting explanation of how the Greeks came to call it a “unicorn” in his Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, even though it actually had two horns–just like today’s cattle.

  43. Plotinus Reply

    The show mentioned the fact that once upon a time, some higher up’s were considering using a contemporary bible translation. Does anyone know more about this? I would be greatly interested.

  44. Plotinus Reply

    The show mentioned the fact that once upon a time, some higher up’s were considering using a contemporary bible translation. Does anyone know more about this? I would be greatly interested.

  45. Joseph Reply

    The problem with McConkie is that he “knows” Christ better than you or I or anyone else. McConkie hides his elitism behind the image of Christ, putting up a covenantal facade (nod to Mike) between Christ and the unwashed masses, who will not worship “appropriately.” McConkie is the quintessential Pharisee.

  46. Joseph Reply

    The problem with McConkie is that he “knows” Christ better than you or I or anyone else. McConkie hides his elitism behind the image of Christ, putting up a covenantal facade (nod to Mike) between Christ and the unwashed masses, who will not worship “appropriately.” McConkie is the quintessential Pharisee.

  47. Chris J Reply

    This was a very interesting podcast. Thanks to all involved. Though I certainly disagree with Mike, I give him credit for sticking by his views. I think John is correct in Mike represents the views of many Mormons, they just don’t dare voice them in most settings because they sound so, well… ridicules. A couple of quick examples.

    1- We need to quit defending the priesthood ban on the blacks. It was a racist doctrine of Brigham Young that became a policy in the church. For a long time the church would not change it. When certain pressures came upon the church they decided to lift the ban. The scriptures state that God is no respecter of persons. The ban was a product of its time – a culture of racism that made its way into the policy of the church. What’s wrong with saying – hey we acted with limited knowledge, and in so doing we screwed up and repent.

    2- Though the Catholic church has it’s own problems – they simply do to much good to be considered the “whore of the earth”. Catholic charities itself is good enough for me to see the organization has many godly attributes.

    http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1924

    The LDS church could learn a lot from such an organization.

    The list could go on and on. The bottom line is I happen to agree with Levi Peterson in his podcast with John Dehlin. BRM is one the best (worst) examples of abusing the priesthood in our time. He used his authority in a way that ultimately lead people to become arrogant, conceited, judgmental, and condescending to those he saw as “wrong”.

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of his final testimony. I just hope that Jesus is a lot more merciful and inclusive than BRM claimed.

  48. Chris J Reply

    This was a very interesting podcast. Thanks to all involved. Though I certainly disagree with Mike, I give him credit for sticking by his views. I think John is correct in Mike represents the views of many Mormons, they just don’t dare voice them in most settings because they sound so, well… ridicules. A couple of quick examples.

    1- We need to quit defending the priesthood ban on the blacks. It was a racist doctrine of Brigham Young that became a policy in the church. For a long time the church would not change it. When certain pressures came upon the church they decided to lift the ban. The scriptures state that God is no respecter of persons. The ban was a product of its time – a culture of racism that made its way into the policy of the church. What’s wrong with saying – hey we acted with limited knowledge, and in so doing we screwed up and repent.

    2- Though the Catholic church has it’s own problems – they simply do to much good to be considered the “whore of the earth”. Catholic charities itself is good enough for me to see the organization has many godly attributes.

    http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1924

    The LDS church could learn a lot from such an organization.

    The list could go on and on. The bottom line is I happen to agree with Levi Peterson in his podcast with John Dehlin. BRM is one the best (worst) examples of abusing the priesthood in our time. He used his authority in a way that ultimately lead people to become arrogant, conceited, judgmental, and condescending to those he saw as “wrong”.

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of his final testimony. I just hope that Jesus is a lot more merciful and inclusive than BRM claimed.

  49. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Let me state the difference between Liberal Mormons and McConkie Mormons.

    Liberal Mormons like to focus on the grace of Christ. They see grace as a sort of mobile line in the sand in regards to commandments and their application in our lives. Its those who focus on grace only that see the doctrines of the church as jello that you cant nail to the wall.

    John 1:17 lists an additional attribute of Christ though, that of truth. Truth is an absolute. Truth comes to all members of the church as they apply the light of the gospel to their lives and see the fruits of the gospel grow in their lives.

    Elder McConkie shone the light of the gospel in his writings and talks to all of the members of the church who both read and listened to his words. He taught the necessity of covenants, the importance of maintaining gospel habits in our lives, and most importantly he spoke in such a way as to allow the Holy Ghost to testify of his words to the hearts and minds of his audience.

    If a member fo the church is to follow Christ they must apply equal importance to both the Grace and the Truth the Savior exemplifies.

    • Glenn Reply

      Let me state what I see as one of the differences between Liberal Mormons and McConkie Mormons — and all I really know of this is what I understand from my own limited experience — the current Liberal Mormon Glenn vs. the former McConkie Mormon Glenn:

      Liberal Mormon Glenn believes that humilty is admitting that I do not know, and that tolerance towards others is a virtue. Sure, there are good and bad absolutes. Being narrow-minded and judgmental and self-serving at the expense of others is bad. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good.

      McConkie Mormon Glenn believed that humility is using “thee” and “thou” in prayers, and in all other ways setting an example of absolute rightoeusness to the world, and that tolerance is for mamby pamby luke warm fools who will just be spewn forth from the mouth of Christ. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is dangerous. Being narrow-minded and judgmental and self-serving at the expense of others is all in a days work, and is just the cost of righteous living (the path is straight and narrow, afterall) — if others don’t like it… tough.

      Furthermore, the whole grace vs. works thing is BS and the way I learned it in seminary was totally back asswards. The NT scripture says that FAITH without works is dead, not that SALVATION without works is dead. It means that if you don’t put action behind your beliefs your beliefs might as well be dead, not that you have to do stuff to activate an otherwise impotent and dormant atonement.

      And finally, what the hell good is it to nail any kind of food to a wall, let alone jello?

      • Mister IT Reply

        Just for the record, I would to state that “Liberal Mormon Glenn” sounds like a pretty cool guy – I could total hang out with “Liberal Mormon Glenn”!

        “McConkie Mormon Glenn” sounds like a real uptight, legalistic jerk! I avoid guys like “McConkie Mormon Glenn” like the plague – and I think most (sane) people do.

        In fact, the Gospel narratives demonstrate that Christ’s harshest, most scathing words were reserved for Pharisees like “McConkie Mormon Glenn”. Christ didn’t have much good to say about those guys!

        And I say this being a recovering Pharisee myself – who, BTW, most people did NOT like hanging out with – and TOTALLY avoided like the plague. In fact, to be completely honest, I didn’t even like hanging out with myself since I was such an arrogant, uptight arse with no life outside of religious fanaticism!

        Yo, “Liberal Mormon Glenn” watcha doin’ this weekend? “Liberal non-Mormon Mr. IT” wants to ‘hang’ with a cool dude like you!

        And if we have some time after the Lakers/Celtics game may be we can put our former Pharisaical selves in a box marked, “Good Riddance!” and kick it off the end of a pier somewhere.

        You in?

        • Glenn Reply

          Ron Artest ripped out my Nash-beating heart. I will actually be preparing to speak in sacrament meeting this weekend. They let me choose my own topic — “the relationship between faith and doubt.” We’ll see how it goes. But until then, LMG needs MMG to take the edge off the message. We can kick him into the pier on Monday.

          • Fred

            Now that your sacrament address is over and you’ve borne your testimony (the recent one where you bore testimony that you have a lot of issues with things that Joseph Smith said and did) can we kick MMG off the pier and into the deep, dark Pacific?

            😉

  50. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Let me state the difference between Liberal Mormons and McConkie Mormons.

    Liberal Mormons like to focus on the grace of Christ. They see grace as a sort of mobile line in the sand in regards to commandments and their application in our lives. Its those who focus on grace only that see the doctrines of the church as jello that you cant nail to the wall.

    John 1:17 lists an additional attribute of Christ though, that of truth. Truth is an absolute. Truth comes to all members of the church as they apply the light of the gospel to their lives and see the fruits of the gospel grow in their lives.

    Elder McConkie shone the light of the gospel in his writings and talks to all of the members of the church who both read and listened to his words. He taught the necessity of covenants, the importance of maintaining gospel habits in our lives, and most importantly he spoke in such a way as to allow the Holy Ghost to testify of his words to the hearts and minds of his audience.

    If a member fo the church is to follow Christ they must apply equal importance to both the Grace and the Truth the Savior exemplifies.

    • Glenn Reply

      Let me state what I see as one of the differences between Liberal Mormons and McConkie Mormons — and all I really know of this is what I understand from my own limited experience — the current Liberal Mormon Glenn vs. the former McConkie Mormon Glenn:

      Liberal Mormon Glenn believes that humilty is admitting that I do not know, and that tolerance towards others is a virtue. Sure, there are good and bad absolutes. Being narrow-minded and judgmental and self-serving at the expense of others is bad. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good.

      McConkie Mormon Glenn believed that humility is using “thee” and “thou” in prayers, and in all other ways setting an example of absolute rightoeusness to the world, and that tolerance is for mamby pamby luke warm fools who will just be spewn forth from the mouth of Christ. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is dangerous. Being narrow-minded and judgmental and self-serving at the expense of others is all in a days work, and is just the cost of righteous living (the path is straight and narrow, afterall) — if others don’t like it… tough.

      Furthermore, the whole grace vs. works thing is BS and the way I learned it in seminary was totally back asswards. The NT scripture says that FAITH without works is dead, not that SALVATION without works is dead. It means that if you don’t put action behind your beliefs your beliefs might as well be dead, not that you have to do stuff to activate an otherwise impotent and dormant atonement.

      And finally, what the hell good is it to nail any kind of food to a wall, let alone jello?

      • Mister IT Reply

        Just for the record, I would to state that “Liberal Mormon Glenn” sounds like a pretty cool guy – I could total hang out with “Liberal Mormon Glenn”!

        “McConkie Mormon Glenn” sounds like a real uptight, legalistic jerk! I avoid guys like “McConkie Mormon Glenn” like the plague – and I think most (sane) people do.

        In fact, the Gospel narratives demonstrate that Christ’s harshest, most scathing words were reserved for Pharisees like “McConkie Mormon Glenn”. Christ didn’t have much good to say about those guys!

        And I say this being a recovering Pharisee myself – who, BTW, most people did NOT like hanging out with – and TOTALLY avoided like the plague. In fact, to be completely honest, I didn’t even like hanging out with myself since I was such an arrogant, uptight arse with no life outside of religious fanaticism!

        Yo, “Liberal Mormon Glenn” watcha doin’ this weekend? “Liberal non-Mormon Mr. IT” wants to ‘hang’ with a cool dude like you!

        And if we have some time after the Lakers/Celtics game may be we can put our former Pharisaical selves in a box marked, “Good Riddance!” and kick it off the end of a pier somewhere.

        You in?

        • Glenn Reply

          Ron Artest ripped out my Nash-beating heart. I will actually be preparing to speak in sacrament meeting this weekend. They let me choose my own topic — “the relationship between faith and doubt.” We’ll see how it goes. But until then, LMG needs MMG to take the edge off the message. We can kick him into the pier on Monday.

  51. Sam Andy Reply

    In some ways I would like to be able to see things in black and white again. It was easier then. The lines weren’t blurred. As someone has said, “it is easier to believe than it is to think.” But back then it was easy, and tempting, to label people and categorize them, using some criteria fabricated by an organization, rather than the divine criteria of love. Now I feel like I’m much more understanding and compassionate toward my fellow beings. When the world was black and white it was easy to judge. Now I feel like I more fully understand Moroni when he says, “I show unto you the way to judge.” Remarkably (or not), many of the former and current claims and positions of Mormonism don’t live up to that scripture. And, rather than attaching artificial labels to people, I feel free to investigate their motives, beliefs, and really try to understand them, without worrying that their views will somehow threaten mine. It’s so liberating. And, through it all, I find my faith in God has grown more than ever.

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      Sam, I agree with the quote you gave, “it is easier to believe than it is to think.” It often seems that Church authorities don’t really want us to think. Your quote reminds me of another quote I once read somewhere that went something like this, “If a man believes you made him think, he will praise and adore you, but if you really do make him think, he will never forgive you.” I think too many people are like that.

  52. Sam Andy Reply

    In some ways I would like to be able to see things in black and white again. It was easier then. The lines weren’t blurred. As someone has said, “it is easier to believe than it is to think.” But back then it was easy, and tempting, to label people and categorize them, using some criteria fabricated by an organization, rather than the divine criteria of love. Now I feel like I’m much more understanding and compassionate toward my fellow beings. When the world was black and white it was easy to judge. Now I feel like I more fully understand Moroni when he says, “I show unto you the way to judge.” Remarkably (or not), many of the former and current claims and positions of Mormonism don’t live up to that scripture. And, rather than attaching artificial labels to people, I feel free to investigate their motives, beliefs, and really try to understand them, without worrying that their views will somehow threaten mine. It’s so liberating. And, through it all, I find my faith in God has grown more than ever.

    • Gunnar R. Reply

      Sam, I agree with the quote you gave, “it is easier to believe than it is to think.” It often seems that Church authorities don’t really want us to think. Your quote reminds me of another quote I once read somewhere that went something like this, “If a man believes you made him think, he will praise and adore you, but if you really do make him think, he will never forgive you.” I think too many people are like that.

  53. Sam Andy Reply

    Clarification: that was Moroni quoting his father, Mormon (Moroni 7:16).

  54. Sam Andy Reply

    Clarification: that was Moroni quoting his father, Mormon (Moroni 7:16).

  55. lump Reply

    Mike,

    If you ever get back to this thread, I would like to know exactly what you were talking about with regards to Noah, Ham, broken temple covenants. I have never heard or read anything regarding that. Could you elaborate? References?

    Thanks

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Lump,
      In the post 10 tribes after show I elaborate on this a bit more I think. Ham sought to imitate the garment pattern, he basicly sought to usurp the rights of the priesthood. For this he was cut off to the rights of the priesthood, hence pharohs desire to hold this authority but lack of any rights to act in it.

      For scripture reference see: Abr 1:26-27. Genesis 9:25, Moses 7:8

      See also “The Pearl of Great Price Commentary” Draper, Brown, Rhodes. Available at Deseret.

      http://deseretbook.com/item/4622940/The_Pearl_of_Great_Price_A_Verse_by_Verse_Commentary

      • Glenn Reply

        Mike,

        What is your source for “Ham sought to imitate the garment pattern?” I looked in those scripture versus — it’s not there.

      • lump Reply

        I’m with Glenn. I don’t see how those scripture references have anything to do with the temple or garments.

  56. lump Reply

    Mike,

    If you ever get back to this thread, I would like to know exactly what you were talking about with regards to Noah, Ham, broken temple covenants. I have never heard or read anything regarding that. Could you elaborate? References?

    Thanks

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Lump,
      In the post 10 tribes after show I elaborate on this a bit more I think. Ham sought to imitate the garment pattern, he basicly sought to usurp the rights of the priesthood. For this he was cut off to the rights of the priesthood, hence pharohs desire to hold this authority but lack of any rights to act in it.

      For scripture reference see: Abr 1:26-27. Genesis 9:25, Moses 7:8

      See also “The Pearl of Great Price Commentary” Draper, Brown, Rhodes. Available at Deseret.

      http://deseretbook.com/item/4622940/The_Pearl_of_Great_Price_A_Verse_by_Verse_Commentary

      • Glenn Reply

        Mike,

        What is your source for “Ham sought to imitate the garment pattern?” I looked in those scripture versus — it’s not there.

      • lump Reply

        I’m with Glenn. I don’t see how those scripture references have anything to do with the temple or garments.

  57. Mister IT Reply

    Regarding:

    “some things that are true are not very useful”
    — Boyd K. Packer

    John, you do realize that saying is pretty unhealthy on a number of levels – right? If you doubt me just look at that mentality has landed Boyd “Pit Bull for the Lord” K. Packer.

    He definitely has his ladder leaning up against the WRONG wall!

    Personally I like this one FAR better:

    “…for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
    — Jesus Christ

  58. Mister IT Reply

    Regarding:

    “some things that are true are not very useful”
    — Boyd K. Packer

    John, you do realize that saying is pretty unhealthy on a number of levels – right? If you doubt me just look at that mentality has landed Boyd “Pit Bull for the Lord” K. Packer.

    He definitely has his ladder leaning up against the WRONG wall!

    Personally I like this one FAR better:

    “…for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
    — Jesus Christ

  59. Fred Reply

    Has anyone actually seen a copy and/or have a copy of the list of 1067 doctrinal errors generated by Petersen and Romney?

    If so, how can I get a copy?

  60. Jacob Brown Reply

    As I have left the church and realized how much diversity there really is, I have discovered that I was most of all a McConkie Saint. I would spend hours reading Mormon Doctrine, studying the PoGP, Genesis, and Revelations, and trying to understand the beginning times and end times. I was totally into the Second Coming stuff. Now I don’t hear about it at all at church.

    Also, I never got in touch with a compassionate and forgiving personal savior. Jesus was the perfect man, but he wasn’t human to me. I think the Christ I envisioned was more like McConkie’s christ.

  61. Deon Rodden Reply

    I marvel at just how stubborn, self righteous and and hard headed so many people are not just Mormons when in the very face of the truth and contrasts in the vast differences in the Biblical teachings vs. LDS teachings they still say that they do not conflict. This is a mystery to me til Jesus (the one of the Bible) clears it up for me I guess in eternity with Him. You know i always thought that if I studied hard and discovered for myself the contrast of these two religions (Biblical vs. LDS) many others who claim to seek after the truth would be so happy for that and see it for themselves and run away from the deceits of the enemy of God yet they don;t, instead they clasp even harder to those who have lied to them and defend those lies as the truth. God of heaven and all that is have mercy on the foolish. That is why Jeremiah in the O.T Bible was known as the “weeping prophet” for the same reason.

  62. Deon Rodden Reply

    O.K. I am confused now and I do not think that it is by coincidence, please help me out for those who have authority and knowledge to do so. My main question is ” who in the LDS church has the final say so about what is officially accepted doctrine of your church and what is the source or sources of it’s accepted authority? Please keep your answer simple and concise as possible. Thank you in advance to those who may be able and willing to help.

  63. micro business ideas Reply

    Very great post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished
    to say that I have truly loved surfing around your
    blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing for your rss feed and I am hoping
    you write again soon!

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus