Could anyone write Mormon Doctrine?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Our priesthood instructor on Sunday quoted from Mormon Doctrine. I could almost hear the body of Cougarguard intellectuals cry out in pain as he cracked it open.

I really think you're exaggerating the issue. There were significant inaccuracies in the book. It was published without the blessing of the first presidency. As an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine" it is therefore not a valid work. Because it was written by an apostle, and because it is called "Mormon Doctrine" and because it is sold through Deseret Book, many members, not knowing the deficiencies of the book, hold it as tantamount to scripture as a source of "Mormon Doctrine."

We know there are many errors in the book. We don't know exactly where all the errors are. It is therefore inherently suspect as an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine." Because it is called "Mormon Doctrine," its utility as any other type of resource is also suspect. Therefore, knowing all of this, unless you don't really care about potentially erroneous "Mormon Doctrine" being taught in Sunday School, I would expect you to cringe, as well.

Just wondering - is "Mormon Doctrine" found as a source in any of the current church teaching manuals?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I really think you're exaggerating the issue. There were significant inaccuracies in the book. It was published without the blessing of the first presidency. As an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine" it is therefore not a valid work. Because it was written by an apostle, and because it is called "Mormon Doctrine" and because it is sold through Deseret Book, many members, not knowing the deficiencies of the book, hold it as tantamount to scripture as a source of "Mormon Doctrine."

We know there are many errors in the book. We don't know exactly where all the errors are. It is therefore inherently suspect as an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine." Because it is called "Mormon Doctrine," its utility as any other type of resource is also suspect. Therefore, knowing all of this, unless you don't really care about potentially erroneous "Mormon Doctrine" being taught in Sunday School, I would expect you to cringe, as well.

Just wondering - is "Mormon Doctrine" found as a source in any of the current church teaching manuals?

The fact that we don't know where all the errors are make it even worse. If the errors could have been identified and forwarded we then could eliminate the information to our satisfaction.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The fact that we don't know where all the errors are make it even worse. If the errors could have been identified and forwarded we then could eliminate the information to our satisfaction.

But then you would be writing Mormon Doctrine, which I think is something the church wants to avoid (cue SU rant about no doctrine, but I think you get my point).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I really think you're exaggerating the issue. There were significant inaccuracies in the book. It was published without the blessing of the first presidency. As an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine" it is therefore not a valid work. Because it was written by an apostle, and because it is called "Mormon Doctrine" and because it is sold through Deseret Book, many members, not knowing the deficiencies of the book, hold it as tantamount to scripture as a source of "Mormon Doctrine."

We know there are many errors in the book. We don't know exactly where all the errors are. It is therefore inherently suspect as an authoritative source of "Mormon Doctrine." Because it is called "Mormon Doctrine," its utility as any other type of resource is also suspect. Therefore, knowing all of this, unless you don't really care about potentially erroneous "Mormon Doctrine" being taught in Sunday School, I would expect you to cringe, as well.

Just wondering - is "Mormon Doctrine" found as a source in any of the current church teaching manuals?

I understand the current impetus for discrediting McConkie and particularly Mormon Doctrine, though I have questions about whether this effort represents sentiments or beliefs held by a majoriity of informed Mormons. This David O. McKay biography appears to be the latest salvo in this campaign.

Here's what I don't understand: If he was such a rogue, if he was understood by Church authorities at the time to have cast the Church in such an embarrassing light as you describe, taking it upon himself to act, no less, without authorization, as the definer of Mormon Doctrine, how did he wind up an apostle? What you describe should have been a career ending event, worse even that Paul H. Dunn's embellishments. If the Church hierarchy were truly as chagrined as you say, why did he keep prgressing within the hierarchy even as his book kept being republished (I know it was available brand new in mission home libraries as late as 1979). This all looks like revisionist history to me.

In any event, as I've noted, this all begs the question in my mind whether what Mormon leaders in 1959 felt was objectionable about Mormon Doctrine is the same thing as what they find objectionable today. Mormon Doctrine is objectionable today--truly humiliating to the LDS Church--primarily because of the racist doctrines it describes. It reveals Mormon doctrine as fraught with racist notions about the origins of blacks and aboriginies. Were it not for that stuff, people wouldn't pay that much attention to it today, I submit. It's the crack-pot racism that prompts certain Mormons today to diminish Mormon Doctrine. Is this what David O. McKay found objectionable about the book?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The fact that we don't know where all the errors are make it even worse. If the errors could have been identified and forwarded we then could eliminate the information to our satisfaction.

Somebody should write a book called Doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, and footnote McConkie's errors.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The fact that we don't know where all the errors are make it even worse. If the errors could have been identified and forwarded we then could eliminate the information to our satisfaction.

Why would we do that, when we have you?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I understand the current impetus for discrediting McConkie and particularly Mormon Doctrine, though I have questions about whether this effort represents sentiments or beliefs held by a majoriity of informed Mormons. This David O. McKay biography appears to be the latest salvo in this campaign.

Here's what I don't understand: If he was such a rogue, if he was understood by Church authorities at the time to have cast the Church in such an embarrassing light as you describe, taking it upon himself to act, no less, without authorization, as the definer of Mormon Doctrine, how did he wind up an apostle? What you describe should have been a career ending event, worse even that Paul H. Dunn's embellishments. If the Church hierarchy were truly as chagrined as you say, why did he keep prgressing within the hierarchy even as his book kept being republished (I know it was available brand new in mission home libraries as late as 1979). This all looks like revisionist history to me.

In any event, as I've noted, this all begs the question in my mind whether what Mormon leaders in 1959 felt was objectionable about Mormon Doctrine is the same thing as what they find objectionable today. Mormon Doctrine is objectionable today--truly humiliating to the LDS Church--primarily because of the racist doctrines it describes. It reveals Mormon doctrine as fraught with racist notions about the origins of blacks and aboriginies. Were it not for that stuff, people wouldn't pay that much attention to it today, I submit. It's the crack-pot racism that prompts certain Mormons today to diminish Mormon Doctrine. Is this what David O. McKay found objectionable about the book?

None of us know the higher or upper echelon administration of the Church. And if we did, "they'd have to kill us."

Just one factor to keep in mind. Even at the time frame when DoM was President much of the Twelve was a family affair, being friends and relatives of Young, Pratt or one of the Smith lines.

BRM was son-in-law to Joseph F. Smith or Fielding Smith, the latter one, not the earlier one, as I confuse the two. I know nothing about nominating new GAs or new apostles, but just knowing about the Church, familiarity with individuals does play a role.

I know somebody will cite an example of some leader being identified with which nobody was familiar, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. And the Twelve has always had different tendencies, mullah tendencies coupled with more liberal tendencies. Usually they balance each other out. Perhaps one side negotiates for one sort, and another negotiates for another sort, and JFS happened to have some chits ready when BRM's name came up. I don't know much abour rapid progression, he only had two callings which he received early on, GA Seventy and then Apostle. In today's world the progression could not happen as quickly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

But then you would be writing Mormon Doctrine, which I think is something the church wants to avoid (cue SU rant about no doctrine, but I think you get my point).

I agree, this is a damned if they did, damned that they didn't conumdrum.

It's one BRM should not have foisted upon the Church. He should have called it, "Bruce's Opinion and Compendium", and nobody would have cared.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Somebody should write a book called Doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, and footnote McConkie's errors.

But then they'd have to have a caveat stating the Church is a canonical, non-credo Church allowing for flexibility in development of core principles, policies and procedures, whose "absolute" doctrines are never absolute and always subject to change as our understanding of them evolves.

We could call it "Mormon Evolutionary Principles and Other Concepts of Space-Time."

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree, this is a damned if they did, damned that they didn't conumdrum.

It's one BRM should not have foisted upon the Church. He should have called it, "Bruce's Opinion and Compendium", and nobody would have cared.

Didn't he do that at the beginning of the book saying he alone is solely responsible for it's content? Yes? No?