Gems from Elder Bruce R. McConkie

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We've been around this park before.

Is that the only option you can see by apparent silence of the prophets? If you were asked to a risk based analysis, I'm certain you would come up with more optinos than that?

And in using the arm of textual criticism, the simplest answer, namely that because others ignored it must be okay with God, does not appear to be the correct one, applies in this case.

You're changing the subject. We're talking about the errors of church leaders and whether or not that negates the value of the bulk of what they said or not.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You're changing the subject. We're talking about the errors of church leaders and whether or not that negates the value of the bulk of what they said or not.

You threw in the zinger from the old subject with no relation to current topic.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why bother worrying about his authority? Examine his argument and evaluate it on its own merit.

That's fine, and that's appropriate. But what some seem to be doing are citing him as an appeal to authority, without evaluating the argument on its own merit. And that's what Archaea's having the problem with.

If someone is going to make an appeal to authority, given the issues with Elder McConkie, wouldn't it be better to use a less muddled authority?

Sleeping in Elder's Quorum did exactly what you proposed here: http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...4&postcount=13

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You threw in the zinger from the old subject with no relation to current topic.

It is most definitely related to the current topic. We're discussing about whether or not you can cite things said/written by past church leaders like BRM because of whatever number of things they said/wrote weren't completely accurate.

I'm just curious about where the cut-off point is where someone's mistakes reach critical mass and taint any legitimate things they may have opined.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It is most definitely related to the current topic. We're discussing about whether or not you can cite things said/written by past church leaders like BRM because of whatever number of things they said/wrote weren't completely accurate.

I'm just curious about where the cut-off point is where someone's mistakes reach critical mass and taint any legitimate things they may have opined about.

BRM is the main culprit but I'd have to thinkabout it.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It is most definitely related to the current topic. We're discussing about whether or not you can cite things said/written by past church leaders like BRM because of whatever number of things they said/wrote weren't completely accurate.

I'm just curious about where the cut-off point is where someone's mistakes reach critical mass and taint any legitimate things they may have opined.

I don't think your question is fair. The criticism of McConkie is that he erred in setting forth what official church doctrine is. In fact, one of the counselors in the First Presidency at the time determined that there were in excess of 1,000 doctrinal errors in his 700-page book. An appeal to McConkie on doctrinal issues, therefore, is inherently suspect.

Name other general authorities who have been known to make other such widespread doctrinal errors. Elder McConkie is one of a kind in that respect.

You are extending this discussion to the issue of racism and blacks and the priesthood.

In light of our current knowledge and revelation, I would discount statements made by the leaders opposing extending the priesthood to blacks on that issue. Unlike McConkie, they haven't shown to have made such widespread doctrinal errors in their writings or teachings, and so I would not treat other matters by those apostles and prophets the same as I would Elder McConkie.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In fact, one of the counselors in the First Presidency at the time determined that there were in excess of 1,000 doctrinal errors in his 700-page book.

Could you provide a textual reference for this?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Could you provide a textual reference for this?

It's found in the David O. McKay biography - I don't know the page.

[All-American]

Page 50:

[Mark E.] Petersen and [Marion G.] Romney took ten months to critique the book and make their report to the First Presidency. Romney submitted a lengthy letter on January 7, 1960, detailing what he felt were the most egregious errors in the book and noting: "Its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author's attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on 'Mormon Doctrine.'" On the same day, Petersen gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections that "affected most of the 776 pages of the book."