I just noticed something interesting about Bruce R. McConkie's 1980 speech at BYU entitled, "Seven Deadly Heresies." I was once attacked for citing this "non doctrinal [sic] speech" in talking about the doctrines of the church.

However, I have been vindicated. The speech now bears the following copyright:

"© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved."

As my detractor noted, "Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is." Anything bearing the IRI copyright has been through the Correlation process and is official doctrine.

In this famous speech, McConkie contrasts "the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom," giving his readers a choice between believing the prophets or accepting "the theories of men." To underscore the impossibility of harmonizing evolution with the gospel, he compares Darwinism to "the false religions of the Dark Ages " and the truths of God to "the truths of science as they have now been discovered."

Some have insisted that McConkie was in this speech softening his position when he said, "These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields."

Of course, this is like saying, You can choose to follow God or the philosophies of men. Come to think of it, that's exactly how McConkie presents it. It has been said that McConkie "essentially says if you can find a way for it to work in the context of doctrine, more power to you." That would explain why McConkie included harmonizing evolution in a list of heresies. "If you can find a way for heresy to work in the context of doctrine, more power to you." Does that sound like something McConkie would say?

Either way, the Seven Deadly Heresies speech is now doctrine. Here they are in order:

1. God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.
2. Church members can harmonize evolution and doctrine.
3. Temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation.
4. The doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.
5. There is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds.
6. Adam is our father and our god, ... he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and ... he is the one we worship.
7. We must be perfect to gain salvation.

Yup, the scriptures are DEAD as a door-nail.

yep. Well said.

to kick in the nuts, then it's this mediocre-lawyer-turned-self-appointed-theologian-and-piece-of-horseshit-McConkie.

Now my detractor is claiming that some IRI-copyrighted materials are official church publications, and others are not.

You cannot make this up.

...copyright some things just to keep people from using them. Sort of copyright-and-bury.

It isn't when they are copyrighting as a man.

My understanding from Mormon friend is that doctrine was redefined as the scriptures, then redefined as the canonized scriptures.

And only those can Mormons go by.

But alas, that only lasted a few months.

Anagrammy

BACKGROUND

When I was a student at BYU in the 1970s, I decided to do a research paper on the official LDS position on organic evolution. Much of my effort to write an accurate account on the subject involved repeated, and often frustrating, attempts to solicit answers from the Mormon Church hierachy.

During my research, I met and spoke with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie.

An account of that meeting follows below, taken from personal notes I made of our discussion, which took place at McConkie's private residence, 260 Dorchester Drive, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday, 7 July 1980, from 5:45 to 7:30 p.m.
_____


EZRA TAFT BENSON ARRANGED THE MEETING

On the day of my conversation with McConkie, I had visited earlier, for approximately three-and-a-half hours, with my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, then-president of the Council of the Twelve, in his Salt Lake City apartment, located in the Bonneville Towers, 777 East South Temple.

During that visit, the conversation turned to my evolution research project. In the course of that discussion, my grandfather and I talked about McConkie's recent 14-stake fireside address, entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies," which he had delivered five weeks earlier, on 1 June 1980, in Brigham Young University's Marriott Center.

In his sermon, McConkie listed as "Heresy Two" the "false and devilish" notion advanced by "those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized."

Such claims, McConkie told his student audience, did not represent "true science" but, rather, "the false religions of the dark ages . . . some of which have crept in among us."

Moreover, while McConkie noted that "true religion and true science bear the same witness," he declared that the theory of organic evolution could "in no way" be harmonized "with the truths of science as they have now been discovered."

To believe otherwise, McConkie said, ran completely counter to "the saving doctrine" of revealed religion. That doctrine, he said, included "that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the fall and, in the case of man, from the spiritual death also, and that this includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life. Try as you may, you cannot harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomiclaly long periods of time."

As proof that "the theories of men"-- i.e., the theories of organic evolution--were out of harmony with "the inspired word", McConkie cited 2 Nephi 2:22-26, which he quoted in full:

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

"And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall."

To believe, he said, that "the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom" can somehow be accomdoated by revealed religion denied the very atonement of Christ, which McConkie called "the great and eternal foundaiton upon which revealed religion rests."

According to McConkie, belief in organic evolution rendered the doctrine of the atonement ineffectual for the following reasons:

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."

I asked my grandfather if McConkie's address represented the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.

In so inquiring, I mentioned to him that my father, Mark A. Benson (Ezra Taft's second son) was seriously considering writing President Spencer W. Kimball to ask the same question.

In response, my grandfather lowered his head, smiled slightly and replied in careful and measured tones that he did not want to say too much, for fear that he "might slip."

He did, however, tell me that prior to its delivery at BYU, McConkie's address had been reviewed by "the Brethren." He said that McConkie himself had offered to make any changes in the prepared text, but that none were requested.

Nonetheless, my grandfather twice noted that "it was understood that the talk represented the views of Elder McConkie."

At this point in our conversation, my grandfather suggested that it might be good for me to speak directly with McConkie on this matter.

Still a true believing Mormon at the time, I replied that I would consider it to be a great honor to meet a man whom I considered to be one of the greatest living scriptorians in the Church.

I added, however, that I did not want to be an imposition. My grandfather assured me that McConkie would be happy to speak with me, assuming that an appropriate time and place could be arranged.

I told my grandfather I would be available to meet with him anytime, anywhere, and would only want to take a few minutes of his time to clarify in my own mind some of the important questions that seemed (at least to me) to be in need of definitive answers regarding the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution.

At this point (approximately 3:45 p.m.), as I looked on, my grandfather went over to the phone and made a personal call to McConkie, who was still in his Church office.

After chatting with McConkie for a few minutes, my grandfather hung up and informed me that the meeting had been arranged for 5:30 that same afternoon, at McConkie's home.

Once the initial excitement had subsided somewhat, I expressed concern to my grandfather that, in the upcoming question-and-answer session with McConkie, I did not want to appear to be lacking faith and testimoney in McConkie's divine calling and apostleship.

In particular, I was somewhat anxious that my inquiries, although sincere, might be misinterpreted and prove offensive to McConkie, who was known for his forthright, umcompromising views--which views appeared to some to reflect a certain degree of sternness and even harshness, when "laying down the line" in areas of Church doctrine.

My grandfather reassured me that McConkie was "a very gracious man," with sons my own age (I was a 26-year-old BYU student at the time). He encouraged me to be as frank with McConkie in my questioning as I had been with him.
_____


CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE BRUCE KIND

By coincidence, I had already planned to meet my father in downtown Salt Lake City after my visit with my grandfather and be driven to my parents' residence, where I was staying during summer vacation.

When I slid into the front seat of my father's car at 5:15 that afternoon and informed him of the scheduled meeting with McConkie in 15 minutes, he was pleasantly surprised. He offered to take me to McConkie's home, which I hoped he would do, since I had not other means of getting there in the few minutes remaining before the scheduled appointment.

As we drove to McConkie's home, I told my father that while I was certainly not adverse to having him sit in on my conversation with McConkie, I regarded the visit as a unique one-on-one opportunity to ask McConkie whatever questions I felt were necessary to provide a clearer understanding of the LDS Church's position on the theory of organic evolution, as well as of the connections, if any, between the Church's official position and the position of McConkie, as outlined in McConkie's "Deadly Heresies" BYU sermon.

My father said he understood and offered to drop me off at McConkie's home, then return to pick me up after our visit was concluded. I did not feel that was necessary and suggested that we "play it by ear."

If McConkie invited both of us into his home, as I expected he would, I felt I would not be inhibited, as long as my father honored my request to be able to interact freely with McConkie, without interruption--no matter how well intended that interruption might be.

McConkie greeted us warmly at the door, presenting an image quite different from the Bruce the Concrete-Hearted that I, and millions of others, had come to expect from his stiff-as-a-board-for-the-Lord conference talks.

He was dressed in an open-necked yellow sports shirt, slacks and house slippers. (And all this time I thought he had been born in a dark blue suit).

He turned to me, grinned and asked if there was anything I did not want my father to hear during our conversation.

I said no, whereupon, McConkie ushered us into his comfortable, sun-lit living room. My father and I sat on a sofa, approximately ten feet across from McConkie, who seated himself in a chair next to a lampstand on which rested his scriptures and some other papers.

His demeanor was relaxed and helped put me at ease. The atmosphere throughout our conversation was open and friendly. McConkie encouraged me, on more than one occasion during our discussion, not to hesitate in asking whatever I wanted.

In keeping with my previous request, my father sat and listened silently.
_____


McCONKIE'S DEFENSE OF HIS "SEVEN DEADLY HERESIES" SPEECH

During the course of our private discussion in which we covered many aspects of the topic of organic evolution as it applied to official LDS Church doctrine, I mentioned to McConkie that several members of the Church--particularly students and professors at BYU--were asking if his 1 June 1980 "Seven Deadly Heresies" fireside address constituted the official position of the Church.

In response to my direct inquiry, "Does your talk represent the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution?," McConkie said that the Church did not have to submit questions concerning doctrine to its membership in order to make them "the stand of the Church" (the latter was a phrase which he emphasized frequently during our conversation).

In reference to his "Seven Deadly Heresies" speech, McConkie said, "This is my view on what I interpret to be the stand of the Church."

As he subsequently built a scriptural case to support his interpretation, McConkie often used the same phrase: "This is my view," when explaining the doctrinal stand of the Church on the theory of organic evolution.

McConkie mentioned that, in the wake of his "Deadly Heresies" sermon, his office had been inundated with requests for copies, with 35 phone calls received by his secretaries in a single two-hour period. In fact, he said, there was greater interest in this particular address than in all other speeches he had previously given.

He went on to say that while he had not intended for his remarks to appear directed primarily at the theory of organic evolution, judging from the response he perhaps should have devoted his entire speech to the subject.
_____


McConkie's self-righteous and, of course, "doctrinally correct" view of himself and his speech is better understood within the context of his attacks on presidents of the Mormon Church who didn't agree with his take on organic evolution.
_____


McCONKIE CLAIMED THAT SPENCER WL> KIMBALL DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE KNEW

I asked Mconkie about the fact that, in personal correspondence with then-Church President Kimball on the LDS stand regarding organic evolution, Kimball admitted to me that he was not aware of the official position of the Church as found in a First Presidency statement entitled "The Origin of Man," issued in 1909.

(Joseh F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anton H. Lund, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, vol. 13, November 1909, p. 75-81)

McConkie responded by insisting that Kimball did, in fact, know about it. He said "he just forgot" that he knew.
_____


McCONKIE CRITICIZES PROPHETS

I asked why President Joseph F. Smith, while prophet/editor of the "Improvement Era," had told inquiring Church members that God had not fully answered how the bodies of Adam and Eve were created.

McConkie informed me that, in fact, this "was not [Joseph F. Smith's] position." I asked him how he knew that. He said, "Jospeh Fielding Smith told me so."

McConkie went on to say, "A prophet is not always a prophet," admitting, "I can be just as wrong as the next guy." He added, "Prophets can be wrong on organic evolution, of course. And have been wrong."

I informed McConkie that David O. McKay, while president of the Church, had told BYU students in a campus speech that organic evolution was a beautiful theory. McConkie responded by saying that if McKay made such a statement, he was "uninspired."

I also told McConkie that McKay and other Church presidents had authorized the sending of letters to inquiring Church members, tinforming them that the Church had not official position on the theory of organic evolution.

McConkie dismissed such correspondence as "underground letters" and said it differed fundamentally from the First Presidency's 1909 statement on the origin of man.

(About that statement, McConkie, in his "Deadly Seven Heresies" sermon had warned: "Do not be deceived and led to believe that the famous document of the First Presidnecy issued in the day of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled, 'the Origin of Man,' means anything except exactly what it says").

McConkie also criticized President Brigham Young for teaching the Adam-God doctrine, which McConkie told me was "false."

Furthermore, he criticized Joseph Fielding Smith, telling me he was "out of his field" in trying to use science against organic evolution in his book, "Man: His Origin and Destiny." McConkie said, "He should have stayed in the areas in which he was trained: scriptures and theology."

McConkie warned me that straying from the scriptures--even if one was a prophet--was to ask for trouble because, he said, people end up "quoting authority against authority."

In the end, he said, "seeing authoritative statements doesn't solve the problem. People are always seeking authoritative statements. Authorities confict."

Besides, he cautioned me, "Cults are created by the endorsement of certain authorities."
_____


McCONKIE SAID THE ONE CAN FIND THE TRUTH ON ORGANIC EVOLUTION IN CANONIZED MORMON SCRIPTURE, NOT IN THE WORDS OF THE LIVING PROPHETS

If the reliablity of Church leaders was suspect, then I wanted to know from McConkie where to turn in order to find the official, authoritative Mormon stand on the theory of organic evolution.

McConkie replied slowly, "This is my view on what I believe to be the stand of the Church: The doctrinal stand of the Church is found in revealed scripture."

With sweeping disapproval, he declared, "Organic evolution does not and cannot account for a paradisical earth, the millennium, an exalted earth and man, the resurrection of man and animals and the pre-existence."

McConkie argued that, ultimately, God's truth was found in the canonized Standard Works, not in the words of living prophets.

He told me that the "Standard Works" are called such because they are the standard against which all other claims are measured, including those made by living prophets.
_____


McCONKIE DECLARES WHAT THE OFFICIAL MORMON POSITON ON ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS

I asked McConkie what was the stand of the Church on organic evolution, as found in the scriptures.

He replied by telling me that the Church would never accept the theory of organic evoluiton as being true "as long as it fails to show that there was no death before the Fall of Adam."

I pressed him by asking him to explain for me the actual official Church position on organic evolution.

McConkie responded by letting me in on some inside information.

He said that the First Presidency had been considering whether to issue a statement on the theory of organic evolution for "over a year." Sometime during that period, he said, they had "sat down and listened to the entire 1909 statement."

McConkie said they had also sat and listened to him. He claimed he was asked to write a statement on organic evolution for possible use by the First Presidency.

The directive came, McConkie said, after Kimball walked into McConkie's office carrying a letter I had earlier sent to Kimball, along with enclosures.

My grandfather confirmed that his episode took place. In a September 1979 phone conversation with me, he said McConkie had been given a copy of one of my letters to Kimball, together with attached statements made by presidents Joseph F. Smith and David O. Mckay on the theory of organic evolution).

McConkie told me that Kimball and one of his counselors, Marion G. Romney, had "personally agreed" to have McConkie draft the statement. McConkie said the remaining counselor, N. Eldon Tanner, "did not participate" in making the recommendation.

McConkie told me he responded by putting together what he called "a special statement prepared for the First Presidency," a 42-page document entitled "Man: His Origin, Fall and Redemption."

(My grandfather, in the same earlier phone conversation, also had told me that McConkie's paper had been "considered favorably by the First Presidency." He said that McConkie had, in fact, discussed his paper with members of the First Presidency on 30 August 1979 and that they "agreed with it").

I asked McConkie what his document included. He said it quoted President John Taylor, whom he described as "definitely anti-evolution."

He also informed me that a scaled-down version of his paper was eventually delivered in the form of his BYU "Seven Deadly Heresies" sermon.

(Following my meeting with McConkie, I wrote him a letter, thanking him for the chance to meet and asking if he might send me a copy of that paper of his, "Man: His Origin, Fall and Redemption," so that, as I told him, I might "more fully understand the scriptural reasoning beind your treatment of these subjects." He never responded).

In our conversation, I also asked McConkie if there would be a current First Presidency statement issued on the Church's official stand on the theory of organic evolution.

He answered by insisting that just because the sitting First Presidency had not issued an official statement on the subject did not mean it did not have one.

I asked McConkie why, if the Church actually had an official position on organic evolution, did it not go ahead and make it known?

McConkie said it had not done so because the Church did not want to pick fights with its vulnerable members.

He explained, "It's a matter of temporizing, of not making a statement to prevent the driving out of the weak Saints. It's a quesiton of wisdom, not of truth."

He compared it to calling the Catholic Church "the Church of the Devil." He said while such a statement was true, one had to be careful about saying it, so as not to offend Catholics.

By now, I was feeling increasingly frustrated.

I pressed McConkie on what he thought the position of the Church on organic evolution might be. He replied, "Don't be deceived. The Church is not neutral. It has taken a stand."

I asked him what that stand was.

He replied, "Henry Eyring's position is President Kimball's position."

He didn't explain what Eyring's position was.

In 1979, however, I had written Kimball, requesting that he tell me the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. In a 24 May 1979 reply, Kimball asked me, "I am wondering if you have read the book of Henry Eyring, 'The Faith of the Scientiest [sic].' Undoubtedly, this book will be found in the library at BYU. I would be glad to hear from you concerning this matter."

I was familiar with the book, having been given a copy by my grandfather some years earlier. I wrote Kimball back, taking him up on his offer to share my thoughts about Eyring's book.

In my letter to him, I noted how Eyring said that science benefits religion by helping it sort fact from fiction.
I asked Kimball just how scientifically reliable the scriptural stories were that proclaimed the earth to be merely 6,000 years old and that declared there was no physical death before Adam. I suggested the Genesis account did not seem to square with strong physical evidence pointing to old rocks, long-dead fossils and evolved humans.

I concluded my letter by telling Kimball that it appeared to me the Church was avoiding taking an official position for or against the theory of organic evolution. I asked him if he would not mind commenting on that observation.

Kimball never wrote me back.

**********

BUt never mind that the Presidents of the Mormon Church didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to the Mormon Church and organic evolution.

All that matters is that Bruce R. McConkie knew that he knew what he was talking about when it came to the Mormon Church and organic evolution.

(For a fuller report of what McConkie told me in this discussion at his home on the subject of organic evolution and the official position of the Mormon CHurch on the subject, see: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon196.htm)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2013 07:43PM by steve benson.

When I was a kid, my Uncle Doug and my pops used to go the rounds over evolution. Pops, who was not a scientist, but was an educated man, constantly appealed to McKonkie and other "doctrinal giants" while Uncle Doug simply had to point out that he was a biology teacher at BYU.

Then, there was the day we met Dinosaur Jim. I waited for my dad to flip out on doctrinal crap, but he just listened as this amazing man told us all about heretical things in the shadow of BYU.

Let me tell you, it's a damn good thing BYU won the Holiday Bowl that year, or my dad's world might have crumbled to the ground.

Duder - Dinosaur Jim Jensen was my branch president at BYU post mission (1980-81). I spent many hours with him discussing evolution and doctrine. One evening he told me how a number of religion professors at BYU demanded he not be allowed on campus, since he taught evolution, and how this went clear to FP & Q12 for resolution.

Makes you wonder just how far up their own asses they can insert their little heads (no, not those little heads, the other ones).

Just because the church has copyrighted and published something does not mean that it is doctrine. That original comment by your Mormon has no theological basis, or basis in statements by church authorities.

Doctrine is not determined by copyright law.

Oh, I know that. He's the one who insists that church publication = doctrine, so I'm calling him on it.

When I worked for the church, I was told that doctrine resides in the scriptures, proclamations, and official First Presidency statements. Church publications are consistent with doctrine, but they are not doctrine themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2012 06:27PM by runtu.

"When I worked for the church, I was told that doctrine resides in the scriptures, proclamations, and official First Presidency statements. Church publications are consistent with doctrine, but they are not doctrine themselves."

I think it used to be that the doctrine resided in:
(1) Things Bruce McConkie said
(2) Official First Presidency statements
(3) Scriptures
(4) Proclamations
In that order.

I sometimes wonder what he'd be saying if he were alive today during the Age of the Internet.

Unfortunately -- I happend to believe all these doctrines as being the absolute truth -- Mainly because of the reason that I was following the Brethren and as commanded I was deeply studying the words of the OLD prophets of the Latter Days ..

JB

Only the published version is doctrine. What he actually said was different than the published version.

I once saw, in parallel columns, the three different versions of the speech: (1) the typed copy he gave to the press before the speech, (2) the actual speech he gave, and (3) the version that was later published.

He basically said, among other things, that Brigham Young was a false prophet who doesn't deserve salvation.

Yep, in the audio he says, "There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish."

The audio is here: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658&tid=2

While in CES, all full timers were forced to participate in 2.5 years worth of the PDP - Professional Development Program.

One of the issues emphasized was this: When the church any document emerges from the correlation process, and it ends up as an official publication of the church, it may be regarded as doctrine.

For example, if Bruce R. McConkie's MORMON DOCTRINE, which is not considered doctrinal, has passages reviewed by the correlation committee, and those passages are approved for use in church curriculum materials, they have become doctrine.

Any book published by the church may be considered doctrine - James E. Talmage's Jesus The Christ, etc.

They hedged a little on church magazines and pointed out that not all the views expressed in the magazines reflect the views of the brethren (in Depends).

This is from the guys who were sent to deliver that message to all the CES folks in PDP. Of course knowing how evasive church authorities are, they may simply deny that too.

I hope this helps.

...I learned a LOT of faux doctrine and total BS at the feet of CES employees.

CES is the best place in the world to wade in bull-sh_t up to your neck. It's how the crazy beliefs prepetuate themselves:

-Cain is Bigfoot
-The North Pole is where the lost 10 Tribes reside
-J Smith never took plural wives
-You cannot go to the celestial kingdom without completing an honorable mission
-Seminary or Institute Teacher's mission tales about casting out Satan, or passing through an angry mob without being seen, or dusting off their shoes to bring God's wrath to a mean citizen.
-The Lord was in his temple last night, that's why the lights were on.
-A kid who tried to lie to his bishop but it was spiritually "discerned" by the bishop that he/she lied.
-Masturbation will bring nothing but heartache and misery.
-The General Authorities will never lead you astray.

The list goes on and on. . . . . I wonder how those guys sleep at night. I didn't, until I escaped.

More than two earrings means you aren't marriage material
colored shirts mean you are soon going to be an apostate.
If you don't go on a mission, nobody will want you.
All boys should go on missions.
All girls will be somebody's wife.
flip flops mean you are disobedient.
tattoos mean you don't respect yourself.

Darn, Someone surely knew long in advance I would be apostate: sometimes I wore colored shirts.

There is no such thing as official Mormon Doctrine anymore. If something was doctrine at one time, even spoken by a prophet, but the current prophet doesn't like it, then it changes.

If something that used to be doctrine is embarrassing, then it no longer is doctrine. They use the "continuing revelation" as an out in all cases. I suppose that means that God changes his mind quite often, probably just to mess with us. He is such a jokester, always telling us one thing, then another, then another.

The last thing it is is static. Evolutionary is a better word (and a much more diplomatic than could be used) to describe it. A BYU professor wrote a book about it. Here's his interview on Mormon Stories: http://mormonstories.org/317-318-byu-professor-charles-harrell-and-the-evolution-of-mormon-doctrine/

There are no theologians in the top Mormon leadership. If there were, they'd have no mechanism for plausible deniability. Also it's a lot harder to hit a moving target so constant morphing rules the day at LDS, Inc.

I just finished reading this book, actually. It is excellent. You are exactly right, the doctrine is indeed evolutionary.

The book really drove home the point that when talking about the nebulous concept that is "Mormon doctrine", you really need to attach a WHEN to the WHAT, because it constantly evolves. This change over time is probably one of the reasons it does appear so nebulous and hard to pin down.

Next time I need my appendix removed, I am praying to God for him to pull it out... rather than see a doctor and his silly theories of men.

Here we have, bunches of men over time given the oppurtunity to 'speak as man', and then one would suppose of good men, do they speak out against the abuse of women and childre and racial and social injusties and giving best advice found in this world how to deal with these questions?

Anything said under the influence/inspiration of the Holy Ghost is scripture. Inspiring words are felt and one may come to know. I say that I know. Bruce R. is correct. Who spoke that day? Bruce R. or the Lord? By that witness I say that I know.