Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by 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.

What are the points?

McConkie was Senior Apostle when he was not, at time of publication?

Fact, at time of publication, he was a Seventy, to the best of my recollection, and caught hell for his audacity.

McConkie became senior apostle, when in fact he did not?

Fact, senior apostle terminology is usually reserved for the President of the Twelve, and McConkie was never close to that. You would have to be an apostle for thirty or forty years.

Are people less reverent of McConkie because of his faux pas's? Yes.

However, the irreverance seems reserved for him and maybe to a much smaller extent to ETB and Packer.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by 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.

No attack is coming from my quarter. I'm just curious that you seem to want the Church to be more fundamentalist and dogmatic (and at the same time you despise those things). Is it that those things drove you out, and so you feel more justified being out when Church leaders play that card? I don't know of course, but I'd like to get a better sense of your motive on this.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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?

If the culture is as you say it was, then the publication and humiliation resulting from its publication created a change in atmosphere. I was not part of the culture for much of your tenure. By the time I entered people were already challenging it.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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?

Okay, then I don't really agree with SU. Also, I think "we" tend overstate the decline of Bruce R. McConkie's influence. Sure, almost everyone on the guard (including myself) are not big fans of McConkie's writing overall, but I am not sure this is true for the median member. No one on this board comes close to being the representative member. Sure, we have conservative contributors but they are far better informed than the typical member. Maybe, the median member under 30 has a lot of misgivings about the book. The survey I cite is only a few years old. McConkie has 4 books in the doctrinal top 20 among those that are responsible for a lot of the religious education in the church.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Not creed based??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG. LOL. This is so ironic coming from a believer in "great apostasy," "last dispensation," "priesthood keys," "apostles," "temple covenants," "baptism for the dead." So now it's no longer creed based? It's Joseph and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not creed based??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG. LOL. This is so ironic coming from a believer in "great apostasy," "last dispensation," "priesthood keys," "apostles," "temple covenants," "baptism for the dead." So now it's no longer creed based? It's Joseph and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

Are you enjoying yourself out there on the margins of relevance?

Please remember this thread next time you are offended that nobody takes you seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

Aha. Gotcha.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not creed based??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG. LOL. This is so ironic coming from a believer in "great apostasy," "last dispensation," "priesthood keys," "apostles," "temple covenants," "baptism for the dead." So now it's no longer creed based? It's Joseph and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

I wouldn't argue that issues of authority are necessarily creed based, but rather I point to the Nicene Creeds, as evidence by our own difficulties is producing consistent interpretations of the nature and character of the Godhead as an example that LDS belief.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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?

I think it is a hugely important book for two reasons:

1. Many members (almost 100% of which are American and even Utahn) find the book to be very authoritative.

2. For many members (almost 100% of which are American) the book sparked the thought that apostles and even prophets can be wrong from time to time (fallible).

One important book, two very different conclusions from the book. Of course, outside the US, and even to the majority of members within the US I would guess, the book is totally unknown and insignificant.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think it is a hugely important book for two reasons:

1. Many members (almost 100% of which are American and even Utahn) find the book to be very authoritative.

2. For many members (almost 100% of which are American) the book sparked the thought that apostles and even prophets can be wrong from time to time (fallible).

One important book, two very different conclusions from the book. Of course, outside the US, and even to the majority of members within the US I would guess, the book is totally unknown and insignificant.

Agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. What I was trying to say. As for your third, I don't know. I assume there's no effort to translate it into various tongues.