McConkie Papers

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

McConkie Papers

Post by Emower » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:06 pm

Lets start a discussion about the crazy stuff found in the McConkie papers from MormonLeaks. I'll start.

There are a few gems from a document called "Some miscellaneous questions and answers." I went right to this one first. Seems like it would have som good stuff, and it didnt disappoint.
Question: In your article, “Christ and the Creation,” (Ensign, June, 1982), you speak of
the “seeds planted by the creators.” To what do you refer?
Answer: When they, the creators, that is all the noble and great ones who helped Elohim,
Jehovah and Michael in the creation, when they helped they literally planted seeds. This
we understand from both the temple account and the Pearl of Great Price accounts of the
creation.
Where did they get the seeds? From another sphere, from which they brought them. This
means that the same kinds of animals and vegetables exist on all other worlds. The seeds
came from some other planet, or planets. The same thing is true of horses, elephants and
all animals. But this is so far beyond the saints that we don’t preach it.
It means some resurrected elephants came and had offspring. Afterwards came the fall of
Adam. All this is had in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. That’s why we don’t
have the sealed portions. We’re trying to be kind to all the evolutionists at the BYU,
hoping that if given time and opportunity, they will repent and believe the gospel. For
political reasons we don’t tell them more. It was the same with Peter and the issue of
circumcision among the Jews.
(MLM Journal, March 12, 1984).
Wow. Resurrected cosmic elephants huh? They just come, spread their seed and leave. That potshot at the "evolutionists at BYU is funny.
When Brigham Roberts first published the Documentary History of the Church, Charles
Penrose refused to let the King Follet Discourse be included in it, for he did not believe
it. I have, or had, a copy of this early History, and it leaves the discourse out, though it
left the pagination unchanged. Thus the pagination goes from something like page 415 to
page 440. A large part of the King Follet Discourse has been suppressed, as it reports that
the Prophet said that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as
children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children. This of course is
false, and is the reason Joseph F. Smith took such labor to correct it in Improvement Era
writing which has been preserved in Gospel Doctrine as well.
Sure of course its false, it makes Joseph sound crazy so of course it is false and needs to be taken out...
It is in this discourse the Joseph announced that men could become Gods, and, once
you learn the plan of salvation the idea that men can become Gods is the most natural,
instinctive and obvious commonplace one could expect. That is why the fellow on the
Godmakers is so wicked, because it perverts such a sound and simple gospel doctrine.
This doctrine that men can become Gods is the most obvious thing in the world.
Is this obviousness why Gordon Hinckley was so eager to promote it on national television? Wait a minute...
Question: Were spirit children born through the same process as mortal children—
meaning through the union of the sexes?
Answer: It is obviously so, and I have heard President Kimball say so. (MLM Journal,
Feb. 26, 1984).
Alright! Thanks for clearing that up Bruce!
Question: We have a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants which identifies the
descendants of the unrighteous as not having the right to the priesthood. If I were a
missionary tracting, and came to the house of a Great Grandson of William Smith, would
I be able to give him the gospel?
Answer: He has no right.
Question: If I baptize the Great Grandson of William Smith, and he thereafter gets a
patriarchal blessing, must he be adopted into the House of Israel?
Answer: Yes, he had lost the right to the blessings of the House of Israel, and must come
back through adoption. It is just as easy to get cast out of the House of Israel as it is to be
adopted in. (MLM Journal, May 2, 1970).
Harsh! CK is going to be a lonely place I'm afraid...

el-asherah
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by el-asherah » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:10 pm

Question: In your article, “Christ and the Creation,” (Ensign, June, 1982), you speak of
the “seeds planted by the creators.” To what do you refer?
Answer: When they, the creators, that is all the noble and great ones who helped Elohim,
Jehovah and Michael in the creation, when they helped they literally planted seeds. This
we understand from both the temple account and the Pearl of Great Price accounts of the
creation.
Where did they get the seeds? From another sphere, from which they brought them. This
means that the same kinds of animals and vegetables exist on all other worlds. The seeds
came from some other planet, or planets. The same thing is true of horses, elephants and
all animals. But this is so far beyond the saints that we don’t preach it.
It means some resurrected elephants came and had offspring. Afterwards came the fall of
Adam. All this is had in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. That’s why we don’t
have the sealed portions. We’re trying to be kind to all the evolutionists at the BYU,
hoping that if given time and opportunity, they will repent and believe the gospel. For
political reasons we don’t tell them more. It was the same with Peter and the issue of
circumcision among the Jews.
(MLM Journal, March 12, 1984).


This is fascinating!!!!

The idea that seeds for plants and animals are brought from other worlds is part of the Adam God Doctrine invented by Brigham Young and inserted into the temple ceremony, yet Elder McConkie disavows the Adam God theory!

This excerpt also shows how Mormon cosmology is the polar opposite of baseline Christian cosmology. Specifically
  • God (Elohim or Yahweh or Adam/Michael) can't create anything, they must bring existing plant and animal seeds from other planets.
  • Per the D&C, matter is eternal and has always existed, can not be created or destroyed, reflecting a post Newtonian view of the universe. God can only organize existing matter, he can not create matter.
  • In Mormon cosmology, God is a product of the universe, a being who learned how to use the laws of nature and organize chaotic matter.
  • The Mormon view is not only at odds w.r.t. to evolution but also the very idea of modern physics "big bang", i.e. matter was created ex-nihilo, which baseline Christians attribute to an act of God. This is one of the main reasons Christians claim Mormons are not Christian.
He is also stating here that evolution is wrong - because the plants and animals came from other planets. That doesn't answer the question of where plants and animals come from, he is just pushing the question one level deeper. So how did plants and animals get on the previous planet(s)? evolution! or did God or a prior God create them ex-nihilo! yet Gods can not seem to create anything per Mormon doctrine.

How in the world does Bruce know what is in the sealed portion of the BoM? Did God reveal it to him? if so he needs to state his sources or is this just the opinion of a man? Growing up I worshiped Elder McConkie, now I see that he just seems to make things up, which seems to be a requirement to be a prophet, seer and revelator.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by deacon blues » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:13 pm

There must have always been elephants, just as there have always been Gods. T Rexes, on the other hand, have became extinct, so by McConkie's reasoning, we would have to export them from another planet; or use the Jurassic Park method to repopulate the earth with them.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

el-asherah
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by el-asherah » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:44 pm

To continue the discussion about how in Mormonism God can't create anything ex-nihilo we have this tidbit from Bruce:
Question: Were spirit children born through the same process as mortal children—
meaning through the union of the sexes?
Answer: It is obviously so, and I have heard President Kimball say so. (MLM Journal,
Feb. 26, 1984).
So God's spirit children are organized the same way as mortal children - sex!

In Mormonism, Gods just can't create spirit children out of nothing, sex is required. This agrees with the Adam God Doctrine and D&C 132 - Gods in the Celestial Kingdom will have the ability to have eternal increase (sexual reproduction), what makes you a God is having wife(s) in the new and everlasting covenant. What makes you a bigger and more powerful God with a larger kingdom is more plural wife(s) to have even a larger increase (spirit children).

Based on my understanding, this whole theology is based on a limited and wrong understanding of human sexual reproduction, commonly believed in the 1800s. From John Larson's Mormon Expression Podcast on the Adam God theory - it was widely believed in the 1800s only men had the power of creation (without getting to graphic, because well ... you can see it), but women did not have any powers of creation (because well .. you can't see it). Women were viewed as incubators for men's creations.

Thus the power of creation as a God (the priesthood) is only held by men.
Thus you have an entire theology based on a misunderstanding of how human reproduction works.

This belief is embedded into the DNA of the church, even though the church doesn't like to talk about it. Members of the church do believe in Mother(s) in Heaven (we just can't talk about her (them), and her role in the eternities is to be silent on the sidelines)

Because the power of creation as a God is the priesthood is only held by men - the church can never accept women getting the priesthood. To do so, cuts across the entire foundation of the church, where the foundation is based on a basic misunderstanding of human sexual reproduction.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by Palerider » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:05 pm

deacon blues wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:13 pm
There must have always been elephants, just as there have always been Gods. T Rexes, on the other hand, have became extinct, so by McConkie's reasoning, we would have to export them from another planet; or use the Jurassic Park method to repopulate the earth with them.
I'd like to have asked McConkie if all the T Rex's were extinct by the time man came along, why have them in the first place? If he came back with the old Brigham theory about this earth being made up of other planets, I'd ask why they were on the other planets? Did God create them just because he likes to see big lizards duking it out or were their eggs transplanted from some other sphere and why? Maybe the sealed portion of the BofM could tell us. Let's have a look, shall we?
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by Palerider » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:16 pm

el-asherah wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:44 pm

Based on my understanding, this whole theology is based on a limited and wrong understanding of human sexual reproduction, commonly believed in the 1800s. From John Larson's Mormon Expression Podcast on the Adam God theory - it was widely believed in the 1800s only men had the power of creation (without getting to graphic, because well ... you can see it), but women did not have any powers of creation (because well .. you can't see it). Women were viewed as incubators for men's creations.
Certainly generates the question of how come I look like my mother and not a bit like my father.....she certainly had to contribute something. I think there were a lot of these types of theories in those days and even more so among the poorly educated.

ETA: Apparently even the "educated" were guessing up until 1876 when a scientist (Oscar Hertwig) actually observed the reproductive joining of the nuclei of sea urchins that the contribution of women's eggs was finally confirmed...... :idea:
Last edited by Palerider on Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
mooseman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:30 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by mooseman » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:42 pm

el-asherah wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:44 pm
To continue the discussion about how in his whole theology is based on a limited and wrong understanding of human sexual reproduction, commonly believed in the 1800s. From John Larson's Mormon Expression Podcast on the Adam God theory - it was widely believed in the 1800s only men had the power of creation (without getting to graphic, because well ... you can see it), but women did not have any powers of creation (because well .. you can't see it). Women were viewed as incubators for men's creations.

Thus the power of creation as a God (the priesthood) is only held by men.
Thus you have an entire theology based on a misunderstanding of how human reproduction works.

This belief is embedded into the DNA of the church, even though the church doesn't like to talk about it. Members of the church do believe in Mother(s) in Heaven (we just can't talk about her (them), and her role in the eternities is to be silent on the sidelines)

Because the power of creation as a God is the priesthood is only held by men - the church can never accept women getting the priesthood. To do so, cuts across the entire foundation of the church, where the foundation is based on a basic misunderstanding of human sexual reproduction.

You can't make this stuff up! Wait...they did! Like seer stones, its such a radically diffrent way of looking at the world, yet explains so much of our theology its insane to think about
It's frustrating to see the last resort in a discussion of facts be: I disregard those facts because of my faith. Why even talk about facts if the last resort is to put faith above all facts that are contrary to your faith?

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by moksha » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:43 am

Emower wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:06 pm
The seedscame from some other planet, or planets. The same thing is true of horses, elephants and all animals.
You will note that Brother McConkie carefully avoided any mention of unicorns. Some doctrines are too deep to mention outside the Church Office Building.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by Hagoth » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:42 am

moksha wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:43 am
You will note that Brother McConkie carefully avoided any mention of unicorns. Some doctrines are too deep to mention outside the Church Office Building.
Milk ===> meat ===> rainbows
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by alas » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:18 pm

el-asherah wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:44 pm
To continue the discussion about how in Mormonism God can't create anything ex-nihilo we have this tidbit from Bruce:
Question: Were spirit children born through the same process as mortal children—
meaning through the union of the sexes?
Answer: It is obviously so, and I have heard President Kimball say so. (MLM Journal,
Feb. 26, 1984).
So God's spirit children are organized the same way as mortal children - sex!

In Mormonism, Gods just can't create spirit children out of nothing, sex is required. This agrees with the Adam God Doctrine and D&C 132 - Gods in the Celestial Kingdom will have the ability to have eternal increase (sexual reproduction), what makes you a God is having wife(s) in the new and everlasting covenant. What makes you a bigger and more powerful God with a larger kingdom is more plural wife(s) to have even a larger increase (spirit children).

Based on my understanding, this whole theology is based on a limited and wrong understanding of human sexual reproduction, commonly believed in the 1800s. From John Larson's Mormon Expression Podcast on the Adam God theory - it was widely believed in the 1800s only men had the power of creation (without getting to graphic, because well ... you can see it), but women did not have any powers of creation (because well .. you can't see it). Women were viewed as incubators for men's creations.

Thus the power of creation as a God (the priesthood) is only held by men.
Thus you have an entire theology based on a misunderstanding of how human reproduction works.

This belief is embedded into the DNA of the church, even though the church doesn't like to talk about it. Members of the church do believe in Mother(s) in Heaven (we just can't talk about her (them), and her role in the eternities is to be silent on the sidelines)

Because the power of creation as a God is the priesthood is only held by men - the church can never accept women getting the priesthood. To do so, cuts across the entire foundation of the church, where the foundation is based on a basic misunderstanding of human sexual reproduction.
So, men implant their seed in the woman/incubator. And the only reason they have this creative power is because they have priesthood.

So, explain to me how before 1978 any blacks had any babies? Or how nonmembers had babies, or during the great apostasy, how anybody had babies.

I know Brigham believed that the man's seed was really tiny fully formed people. So, they knew that by breeding animals and plants, such as Mendal's peas, that traits of the mother were passed down just as much as traits of the father. But according to what BY believed, every child that the man had would be an exact copy of himself. I mean, even if they did not understand genetics and that the mother donates half and the father donates half, they could look around and see that their theory of women as blank pots of dirt for the seed to grow in was bunk. But their theory made them feel superior to women, so therefore they twisted what they knew about breeding animals and refused to apply it to humans because to do so might shatter their superiority complex.

el-asherah
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by el-asherah » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:24 pm

alas wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:18 pm
So, explain to me how before 1978 any blacks had any babies? Or how nonmembers had babies, or during the great apostasy, how anybody had babies.

I know Brigham believed that the man's seed was really tiny fully formed people. So, they knew that by breeding animals and plants, such as Mendal's peas, that traits of the mother were passed down just as much as traits of the father. But according to what BY believed, every child that the man had would be an exact copy of himself. I mean, even if they did not understand genetics and that the mother donates half and the father donates half, they could look around and see that their theory of women as blank pots of dirt for the seed to grow in was bunk. But their theory made them feel superior to women, so therefore they twisted what they knew about breeding animals and refused to apply it to humans because to do so might shatter their superiority complex.
Wrt to non-members, apostasy, and blacks (pre 1978) not having the priesthood but yet reproducing, you are applying the theology of being a God and God's priesthood to that of mortals. Mortal priesthood is limited, per mormon doctrine earth life is a trial period to see if you make the cut and can become a God. The discussion was about the extension of human reproduction to the theology of God's priesthood (creative power), take this statement from Joseph F Smith - an aspect about being a God is the ability to increase (reproduce) forever.

"In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection." (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

This Joseph F Smith quote directly contradicts "gender is eternal" in the "Proclamation on the Family" because per mormon doctrine most people will not make it the the celestial kingdom and lose their gender.

I never knew the facts you quoted about Brigham Young's beliefs! truly bizarre! you can't make this stuff up if you tried!!!!

To me this idea about God/creation/priesthood is absolutely bonkers!! but given the lack of knowledge of genetics in the early 1800s I can see how JS , BY, etc.. encapsulated these ideas into what God's priesthood is and what God's power of creation might be. Today women still can't have the priesthood because of why? There is no revelation or any scripture anywhere in the standard works that says women can't have the priesthood, and there were women apostles and prophets in the Bible! In the church today, men get the priesthood and women get motherhood, implying in the celestial kingdom as God's - men have the priesthood and women have eternal motherhood.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by alas » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 am

el-asherah wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:24 pm
alas wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:18 pm
So, explain to me how before 1978 any blacks had any babies? Or how nonmembers had babies, or during the great apostasy, how anybody had babies.

I know Brigham believed that the man's seed was really tiny fully formed people. So, they knew that by breeding animals and plants, such as Mendal's peas, that traits of the mother were passed down just as much as traits of the father. But according to what BY believed, every child that the man had would be an exact copy of himself. I mean, even if they did not understand genetics and that the mother donates half and the father donates half, they could look around and see that their theory of women as blank pots of dirt for the seed to grow in was bunk. But their theory made them feel superior to women, so therefore they twisted what they knew about breeding animals and refused to apply it to humans because to do so might shatter their superiority complex.
Wrt to non-members, apostasy, and blacks (pre 1978) not having the priesthood but yet reproducing, you are applying the theology of being a God and God's priesthood to that of mortals. Mortal priesthood is limited, per mormon doctrine earth life is a trial period to see if you make the cut and can become a God. The discussion was about the extension of human reproduction to the theology of God's priesthood (creative power), take this statement from Joseph F Smith - an aspect about being a God is the ability to increase (reproduce) forever.

"In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection." (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

This Joseph F Smith quote directly contradicts "gender is eternal" in the "Proclamation on the Family" because per mormon doctrine most people will not make it the the celestial kingdom and lose their gender.

I never knew the facts you quoted about Brigham Young's beliefs! truly bizarre! you can't make this stuff up if you tried!!!!

To me this idea about God/creation/priesthood is absolutely bonkers!! but given the lack of knowledge of genetics in the early 1800s I can see how JS , BY, etc.. encapsulated these ideas into what God's priesthood is and what God's power of creation might be. Today women still can't have the priesthood because of why? There is no revelation or any scripture anywhere in the standard works that says women can't have the priesthood, and there were women apostles and prophets in the Bible! In the church today, men get the priesthood and women get motherhood, implying in the celestial kingdom as God's - men have the priesthood and women have eternal motherhood.
I guess I was trying to point out just how crazy the "priesthood=power to create children" idea is.

If they thought it through, they already knew that the female contributes to what the child becomes, because they used that all the time in breeding animals.

And the real reason that women cannot have the priesthood of Elohim is because in the temple, they are told that they will become priestesses unto their husbands. In other words, I cannot have the priesthood of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ because they are not my god. My husband is my "lord". Look at who takes a wife through the veil in the temple. Not "The Lord" but "her lord". So, some time, if I am good enough according to LDS doctrine, I will be given the priesthood of my husband. When he becomes a god, then he will have the priesthood of his Father, and I will have to priesthood of Mr. alas.

See, the church can never ordain women because our husbands are not gods yet.

And the church counts on the fact that most women don't realize that they will get the priesthood of their husband because he is their God. It is this idea that a woman's husband is her God that they don't want to be understood by anyone who is not getting their second anointing.

User avatar
GoodBoy
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by GoodBoy » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am

What fascinates me is the confidence that he states this stiff with absolutely zero evidence. A thought just pops in his head and that is the way the universe works. Absolutely. Anyone that disagrees with him is evil.
Always been the good kid, but I wanted to know more, and to find and test truth.

User avatar
FiveFingerMnemonic
Posts: 1484
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by FiveFingerMnemonic » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:02 am

GoodBoy wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am
What fascinates me is the confidence that he states this stiff with absolutely zero evidence. A thought just pops in his head and that is the way the universe works. Absolutely. Anyone that disagrees with him is evil.
I have a friend who is sort of NOMish that I often have discussions with. He always says that love or hate Bruce, at least he had the gumption to speak authoritatively, which is something lacking greatly in other leaders with their washed down safe rhetoric in modern times. :)

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by deacon blues » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:00 am

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:02 am
GoodBoy wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am
What fascinates me is the confidence that he states this stiff with absolutely zero evidence. A thought just pops in his head and that is the way the universe works. Absolutely. Anyone that disagrees with him is evil.
I have a friend who is sort of NOMish that I often have discussions with. He always says that love or hate Bruce, at least he had the gumption to speak authoritatively, which is something lacking greatly in other leaders with their washed down safe rhetoric in modern times. :)
Perhaps his perspective was so darned limited because, he didn't listen to anybody outside the LDS Party Line. he might have heard words, but he never listened. And many leaders are the same today.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by 2bizE » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:52 am

Mckonkie was like the leaders of old where they would just pull doctrinal garbage out of their a$$es. He was a great inventor of false doctrine. One of the best next to JS and BY.
~2bizE

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by Rob4Hope » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:26 am

GoodBoy wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am
What fascinates me is the confidence that he states this stiff with absolutely zero evidence. A thought just pops in his head and that is the way the universe works. Absolutely. Anyone that disagrees with him is evil.
Bruce was a bully. He was an arrogant bully, and from some of the things I've read, he didn't care much about people's feelings; he just pushed until he got his way, and to he11 with anyone who stood up to him and said NO.

el-asherah
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by el-asherah » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:00 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:26 am
GoodBoy wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 am
What fascinates me is the confidence that he states this stiff with absolutely zero evidence. A thought just pops in his head and that is the way the universe works. Absolutely. Anyone that disagrees with him is evil.
Bruce was a bully. He was an arrogant bully, and from some of the things I've read, he didn't care much about people's feelings; he just pushed until he got his way, and to he11 with anyone who stood up to him and said NO.
I suspect the attitude of Bruce was influenced by the fact that he had received his 2nd annointing. Any idea that came into his head was from God, because he was scripture, and he was ensured to be a God. He could do no wrong and could make no mistakes.

It doesn't matter what other people think, because he could never be wrong.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by Emower » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:11 am

el-asherah wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:44 pm
Based on my understanding, this whole theology is based on a limited and wrong understanding of human sexual reproduction, commonly believed in the 1800s. From John Larson's Mormon Expression Podcast on the Adam God theory - it was widely believed in the 1800s only men had the power of creation (without getting to graphic, because well ... you can see it), but women did not have any powers of creation (because well .. you can't see it). Women were viewed as incubators for men's creations.

Thus the power of creation as a God (the priesthood) is only held by men.
Thus you have an entire theology based on a misunderstanding of how human reproduction works.

This belief is embedded into the DNA of the church, even though the church doesn't like to talk about it. Members of the church do believe in Mother(s) in Heaven (we just can't talk about her (them), and her role in the eternities is to be silent on the sidelines)

Because the power of creation as a God is the priesthood is only held by men - the church can never accept women getting the priesthood. To do so, cuts across the entire foundation of the church, where the foundation is based on a basic misunderstanding of human sexual reproduction.
This is fascinating to me. Never thought about it in this way before. This will take some digestion. I'm not sure I agree with women getting the priesthood being the same as getting creation power. I think even if that creation attitude was the case in the 19th century it is not the case anymore, and the reasons for denying the priesthood are somewhat different.

el-asherah
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: McConkie Papers

Post by el-asherah » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:07 pm

Emower wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:11 am
This is fascinating to me. Never thought about it in this way before. This will take some digestion. I'm not sure I agree with women getting the priesthood being the same as getting creation power. I think even if that creation attitude was the case in the 19th century it is not the case anymore, and the reasons for denying the priesthood are somewhat different.
Yep! this is fascinating to me also, it never occurred to me until I listened to the Mormon Expression Adam God podcast.

I'm with you I don't see how this makes any sense anymore. But why did the church start denying women the priesthood? there are no scriptures in the standard works (Bible, D&C, BoM, PoGP, ... ) that deny women the priesthood (in fact there are verses in the Bible with women apostles and prophets), there are no canonized revelations in the church that deny women the priesthood. In short, there is no scriptural basis anywhere for denying women the priesthood, which leaves only one thing "tradition". Near as I can figure, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor were products of the environment and time they lived in, they had the same misunderstanding of human genetics as most people of the same time period. They held the belief that only men could create human life and God creates spirit children the same way. Then as each prophet died off no one questioned the opinions of the prior prophets because they spoke with God and would never lead the church astray, leading us to today where women still do not have the priesthood. Similar to how the temple no longer makes sense because it has been stripped of its Masonic context, women can't have the priesthood (since Goddess don't have it) has been stripped from its 1800's genetic knowledge context.

The quotes from Bruce re-enforce the idea that in the early Mormon mindset God can can not create anything from scratch, he needs plant/animal seeds from prior planets, and he creates spirit children the old fashion way via sex. Bringing plant/animal seeds from another planet is not a power of creation - it is terraforming which even humans will be able to do soon. It seems in the early Mormon mindset the only thing God could create was spiritual children through some sort of sexual reproduction, and as I was taught in church God's power of creation is the priesthood.

It is also fascinating to me that an organization that believes it can not be lead astray, has no mechanism to correct itself when it is lead astray.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests