Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"

[Sleeping in EQ]

This subject has been hashed through many times. Two apostles found tons of problems with it and he published it with something less than official approval. Mormon Doctrine's legacy is more divisive these days, but there are still those Mormons who hold to it pretty closely.

I'm not one of them.

An observation for SU:

You seem to want to "stick" Mormons with their mullahness. It's almost like you want them to be more mullah.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am struggling to understand what his general point is. Perhaps you can help me.

My point was that Mormon Doctrine is such an important book and so embarrassing to Mormons my age and younger that they have no choice but to speak disparagingly of McConcie. This is always surprising to me, given how I was raised to revere General Authorities and the status of Mormon Doctrine before, during and after my mission.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I thought it was that Mormon Doctrine was a very important book and people in the church thought very highly of it before SU left. It was close to the standard reference work on doctrine. Did I incorrectly see through SU's hyperbole?

No, I don't think that was his main point. If that's the case, who would argue with that? How did he ever get the idea that we don't agree that the book was highly regarded and highly influential?

Here is what puzzles me. He states:

Since "Mormon Doctrine" pragmatic Mormons must acknowledge that their apostles and prophets are very capable of not only error, but downright foolishness, backwardness, mendacity, and purveying downright evil and false creed. There is no other explanation for "Mormon Doctrine" regardless of your status with the Mormon church, if you have more than an ounce of pragmatism. "Mormon Doctrine" is an embarrassment of staggering proportions. It just is.

Followed by:

I've never gotten used to the condescending and critical comments younger Mormons now routinely apply to McConkie, as a superficial fall back to explaining the inexplicable, though it appears some younger Mormons take this reality for granted. To me this paradigm shift is astonishing.

He almost seems to be saying "How dare any of you speak ill of such an awful book?"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

He was a member of the 12 for 13 years. I wasn't aware that there was such a formal status as "senior apostle." MD was in publication all that time. I believe he was one of the oldest and longest tenured apostles when he died.

With twelve years, he wasn't close.

No, he was notable through his marriage, through his dogmatic style and deep bass voice, not by virture of tenure or actual production.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

This subject has been hashed through many times. Two apostles found tons of problems with it and he published it with something less than official approaval. Mormon Doctrine's legacy is more divisive these days, but there are still those Mormons who hold to it pretty closely.

I'm not one of them.

An observation for SU:

You seem to want to "stick" Mormons with their mullahness. It's almost like you want them to be more mullah.

The problem is exacerbated because no one who counts will adress Mormon Doctrine or even really say what Mormon doctrine is, except for broad generalizations in a puff piece.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

He almost seems to be saying "How dare any of you speak ill of such an awful book?"

That's what I meant when I said that SU seems to want to "stick" Mormons with their mullahness.

[SeattleUte]

Soon to come are efforts to attack SU the messenger as well. But SU is just making a few modest and indubitable points plain as the nose on your face.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

...But SU is just making a few modest and indubitable points plain as the nose on your face.

LOL. Modest, indeed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The problem is exacerbated because no one who counts will adress Mormon Doctrine or even really say what Mormon doctrine is, except for broad generalizations in a puff piece.

LDS are not a creed based religion, so you will never again see formal declarations of necessary creeds. It is more of a lifestyle commitment than creed-based.

MD is embarrassing because it endeavors to create a creed where we need one not.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

He almost seems to be saying "How dare any of you speak ill of such an awful book?"

Maybe I'm saying something like that, scrubbing away your hyperbole. All I'm really saying is how things have changed: It used to be no one would say something like what an awful book this apostle wrote; he's so full of it. It just wasn't done. Which is where Palagius' point comes in. An apostle (or Seventy) writes (or publishes a new edition) of a book authoritatively called "Mormon Doctrine," with a tone that sounds for all the world like the burning bush in DeMille's move, naturally the book becomes hugely important. Especially when fellow GA's endorse it at least by their silence. "Mormon Doctrine" has changed that paradigm. That's all I'm saying. Does anyone disagree with me as far as that goes?