|
COPY
. . .Dear President McKay:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
. . .President McKay . . .. . .. . .-4- . . .. . .. . .January 28, 1959
. . .Enc. . . .P. S.
|
"We had an excellent example on the list regarding entries from David O. McKay's journal regarding the problems they were having [sic] with Bruce R. McConkie's 'Mormon Doctrine'. They did not like his book and did not agree with over 1000 items in it. They could have publicly humiliated him over it, but did not, in spite of the fact that he went ahead with the publication over their objections. They were careful to handle the situation in a way which would not damage his credibility with the church, and diminish the effectiveness of his ministry. I feel that we need to be just as careful not to damage the credibility of our leaders."
"There may be times when it would be appropriate to discuss the faults of a church leader. To use my previous example, if a friend were having marital problems, it might be appropriate to use an example from your own marriage of how a problem was confronted and overcome. This is an entirely different thing than publicly humiliating your spouse at a party, don't you agree?"
My response is that this is NOT the way false doctrine was
handled in the past. Joseph Smith said that he would allow anyone
to express their feelings at the pulpit, but that it was also
at that same pulpit that they should be ready to be corrected
and proper doctrine reaffirmed. This infers that the person was
also corrected in front of everyone if he preached it in front
of the congregation.
Case in point: In two works published by Orson Pratt, he advanced
"incorrect and unsound doctrines" concerning the nature
of God and the "Great first cause." These were published
in the "Life of Joseph Smith, by Lucy Smith," and in
the "Seer." The First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve
corrected Orson's false teachings with a PUBLIC REPRIMAND published
in the Millennial Star, vol. 27, pp.657-63, dated October 21,
1865. Their purpose in publishing the criticisms of their fellow
Apostle is given as follows:
"We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them. The interests of posterity are, to a certain extent in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them. Such a construction could be put upon our silence respecting them, and would tend to perplex and mislead posterity, and make the labor of correction an exceedingly difficult one for them. We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writing of men who have passed away, especially to the writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, feel the necessity of being watchful on these points. Personal feelings and friendships and associations ought to sink into comparative insignificance, and have no weight in view of consequences so momentous to the people and kingdom of God as these." (Millennial Star 27:659)
It appears that standards changed in modern times in that the
image of the Church and image of a leader were more important
in their estimation than the correction and implementation of
true doctrines and concepts.
Brigham Young publicly denounced Orson Pratt's doctrine in a conference
talk on Jan. 13, 1867. This he did, I believe, for the protection
and proper edification of the Saints:
"Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in the capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful. But there are some of our brethren who know just so much, and they seem to be able to learn no more. You may plead with them, scold them, flatter them, coax them, and try in various ways to increase their knowledge; but it seems as if they would not learn. They know the Gospel is true, and that it has brought blessings to them, but ask them if they know who they are? where they are from? why they are here?" (JD: 11: begin pg. 282)
To me, a comparative demonstration exists between the approach
to disseminating truth and also to the institutional approach
of protecting images. It seems that Brigham and Joseph were more
interested in truth and its dissemination than they were in protecting
feelings and public image for outward consumption.
D&C 121 comes to mind:
"That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; BUT WHEN WE UNDERTAKE TO COVER OUR SINS, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." (D&C 121:37-37)
I thought the contrast might be of interest.
Sincerely, Jeff Hanks
1. Marion G. Romney Letter to LDS President David O. McKay, 28 January 1959.
This letter was written to President McKay to explain the findings after reading and investigating the doctrinal content of Bruce R. McConkie's new (at the time) book, Mormon Doctrine. The doctrinal investigations into Mormon Doctrine were conducted at the request of President McKay. Bruce R. McConkie was a new LDS General Authority at the time who took it upon himself to write Mormon Doctrine upon his own "sole and full responsibility--"
"without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on 'Mormon Doctrine.' " (quote from letter below)
In this letter, Marion G. Romney questions the "propriety" of a new General Authority conducting such a work without "assignment and supervision," and details many, many errors or questionable statements in the body of the letter. It is not the purpose of this article here to specifically comment on the correctness or error of individual appraisals by Marion G. Romney on doctrinal statements in Mormon Doctrine, but to illustrate how erroneous materials in the sight of the LDS leaders at the time were nonetheless released to the LDS people and public as "Mormon Doctrine--" and this done to "save the credibility of Bruce R. McConkie as a General Authority of the Church."
|
COPY
. . .Dear President McKay:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
. . .President McKay . . .. . .. . .-4- . . .. . .. . .January 28, 1959
. . .Enc. . . .P. S.
|
2. Excerpts from the Presidential Journal of LDS President David O. McKay.
The excerpts below are taken from President McKay's personal presidential journal for the month of January 1960, and illustrate the difficulties presented to the LDS leadership at the time that Bruce R. McConkie wrote and published Mormon Doctrine on his own without consulting the LDS authorities over him. Mark E. Peterson stated he found 1067 errors in 776 pages in the original edition. In council, the First Presidency and others agreed that in order to republish a corrected edition of the book, the necessary changes would be so "extensive" as to "destroy the credit of the author," "that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church." The comments from these journal entries also state that it was "most unfortunate that it [Mormon Doctrine] has received such wide circulation."
However, Mormon Doctrine was indeed republished with some changes, but not with a complete revamping, and is now a staple or "encyclopedia" of "Mormon Doctrine" among so many LDS people not familiar either with the circumstances that resulted in the book Mormon Doctrine, or with former LDS doctrines that Bruce R. McConkie has been one of the chiefs in fighting against. We solemnly testify that these former doctrines of the Latter-day Restoration, fromer doctrines that Bruce R. McConkie fought so hard to destroy, are indeed the true doctrines of the Kingdom.
Excerpts from the Daily Journal of President David O. McKay
Concerning the publishing of Bruce R. McConkie’s book:"MORMON DOCTRINE" THURSDAY January 7, 1960
10:15 to 12:45 p.m. RE: The book - "Mormon Doctrine"
. . . The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney. They. submitted their report upon their examination of the book "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce McConkie.
. . . These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book "Mormon Doctrine" had not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Peterson stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.
. . . I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve.
. . . It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the twelve before I talk to the author.
. . . Elder Peterson will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine. A rough draft will be submitted to us for approval.
FRIDAY January 8, 1960
11:55 to 12:15 p.m.
. . . The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, "Mormon Doctrine" recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition.
. . . We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency (See January 7, 1960)
WEDNESDAY January 27, 1960
3:00 P.M.. . . . . . Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, "Mormon Doctrine". . . At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, "Mormon Doctrine", as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel.
. . . I then said: "Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the Temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie’s book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors (some 1,067 of them) are corrected."
. . . Brother Smith agreed with the suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."
. . . I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the principles as printed in his book in answer to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, "I will speak to him about that." I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, "I will speak to him about that also."
. . . I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise.
THURSDAY January 28, 1960
8:30 to 9 a.m.. . . Bruce R. McConkie’s Book
. . . Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book "Mormon Doctrine" should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Brother McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should hot be republished, and said that he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning.
. . . When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to his book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can." In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect.
THURSDAY January 28, 1960 (continued)
10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
. . . Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.
. . . At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book "Mormon Doctrine," stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form. Even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it and that it be not recognized as an authoritative book.
. . . I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect, but it is felt that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommended that the situation be left as is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it.
. . . I reported that the First Presidency had talked with Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do He will not attempt to republish the book, nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question has been raised as contained in the book.
. . . The Brethren unanimously approved of this.
. . . I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, "I only am responsible for it," but I said "you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed ." I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion, this became the consensus of the Council.
We would like to point out just one example of one of the changes from the first Edition of Mormon Doctrine. In the original edition, there was the following statement referring to those who entered into Plural Marriage, or continued to live it after the Manifesto:
The above statement was omitted in the publication of the second edition. Would you like to know why? By his statement, and on his own responsibility, Bruce R. McConkie condemned to an eternal damnation those among the LDS Leadership about one hundred years ago, very nearly all of the leaders at the time, who continued to practice Plural Marriage after the Manifesto:
- President Wilford Woodruff for permitting and authorizing many new plural marriages after the Manifesto, and for marrying a new plural wife in 1897, seven years after the Manifesto.
- President Lorenzo Snow for permitting and giving authorization for new plural marriages in the LDS church during his administration.
- President Joseph F. Smith for fathering eleven children from his plural wives after the Manifesto, and for authorizing new plural marriages during his administration.
- George Q. Cannon for preparing and signing special permission forms for new plural marriages after the Manifesto.
- President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Francis M. Lyman, for performing a plural marriage ceremony for Apostle John W. Taylor, two and one half weeks after the Manifesto.
- Brigham Young Jr. for taking a new plural wife, and for performing other new plural marriages after the Manifesto
- Heber J. Grant for publicly boasting about being a "lawbreaker" while continuing to live with and father children by his plural wives, for being convicted and fined in a court of law for such, as well as for his publicly expressed desires for additional wives, all after the Manifesto.
- Abraham H. Cannon, Rudger Clawson, Matthias Cowley, John W. Taylor, George Teasdale, Abraham O. Woodruff, all Apostles, for marrying a new plural wife after the Manifesto.
- Matthias F. Cowley, Anthon H. Lund, Marriner W. Merrill, John W. Taylor, George Teasdale, Abraham O. Woodruff, all Apostles for performing new plural marriages after the Manifesto.
The above list only includes the instances that have been discovered, nor does it include the hundreds of other instances of plural marriages since the Manifesto which were officially sanctioned and secretly performed by lesser authorities and rank and file members.
Why did these "brethren" at that time violate the Manifesto? Because they knew it was not a revelation from God, and many made statements stating such that are now a part of the historical record. They knew that plural marriage was and still is an eternal principle (among others), given to this dispensation for the exaltation of those who would desire to enter the presence of God and be like him. The present-day LDS doctrinal and practical position on this doctrine is a deception, the same as with many other former LDS principles and doctrines. Well did Isaiah prophecy concerning this type of deception among those who otherwise were supposed to be the leaders of Latter-day Israel:
- 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
- 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
- 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.
- 12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:
- 13 Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. (Isaiah 30:9-13)
We invite all to to humbly consider the above prophetic message.
