Back in June of 1980, Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a very famous (infamous) talk to the students of BYU. In it he outlined seven things that seems to be bothering him about perceived beliefs of Mormons, and proceeded to explain why these things were wrong.
The seven heresies are:
Heresy One: God is Progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.
Heresy Two: A joint belief in organic evolution and revealed religion can be harmonized.
Heresy Three: Temple marriage assures us of exaltation.
Heresy Four: Salvation for the Dead offers men a second chance at salvation.
Heresy Five: The doctrine of Eternal Progression can also apply to individuals in progressing between kingdoms.
Heresy Six: The Adam-God Doctrine as espoused by Brigham Young and currently believed by various fundamentalist sects.
Heresy Seven: Individuals must be perfect to acquire salvation.
He said some pretty harsh things about these topics, so harsh that the church chose to alter the official transcript of his talk, to “tone it down”
You can listen to the original audio of his talk here, and you can read what church’s transcript of the talk here.
They are quite different in some places. So different, that even FairMormon (now known as FairChurchofJesusChristofLatter-day Saints) did a side by side comparison here, with the only comment that the talk was “softened significantly in the printed version to be more inclusive of different opinions.”
This is all new to me. I knew of the talk, but did not know of the changes the church made to it. I borrowed the below comparisons that a friend of mine put together. Some of the more significant ones to me are:
Audio: “There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.”
Transcript: “There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.”
Whoever edited the talk took out the definitive statement “false and devilish” and replaced it with some statements on what some people believe.
Audio: “Do not be deceived and led to believe that the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled “The Origin of Man” means anything except exactly what it says.”
Transcript: “Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled “The Origin of Man” as meaning exactly what it says?”
Here they turned a another definitive statement into a question.
Audio: [following the story of a non-member man who smoked, drank alcohol, and told “bawdi stories” but assumed his LDS wife would have his temple work done after he died.]
“He died and she did and it was a total and complete waste of time.”
Transcript: “He died and she had the work done in the temple. We do not sit in judgment and deny vicarious ordinances to people. But what will it profit him?”
Wow! Temple work for the dead is a total and complete waste of time! No wait, we can’t let the members know this, so lets change this sentence to say exactly the opposite of what Bruce said!
And finally:
Audio: [at the end of his talk] “Now I have deliberately read portions of my talk tonight because I wanted the words to be the way you heard them, so that I would be on record on the matters that are involved, and so that as far as I am concerned the word would have been said in the plainness that I have given it, and those who heard would then be accountable themselves for their reaction to it.”
Transcript: This was completely left out of the transcript!
The irony of his last statement, and the church’s treatment of it, is leaving poor old BRM rolling over in his grave! In fact this change is so full of irony, that even FairMormon couldn’t stomach it, and they (mistakenly?) put this statement in the “transcript” side (meaning BRM did not say it, but was added later by an editor).
What are your thoughts? What other changes in his talk do you find interesting?
Wheat & Tares 
Good Sunday morning Bishop Bill.
Thank you for dedicating your time to these “platicas”
I think that sometimes with the BYU talks the GA’s come out and say what they really think. They may use it as a testing ground, especially pre-internet, to try out different speeches. The church PR machine would then have to post-clean up the talks. How many other times has this occurred?
If Ronald Poelman would have given his Iron Rod vs. Liahona Speech at BYU, then the church would not have had to edit his 1984 conference talk.
I just found that BYU has a data base of all the BYU talks over the years. In a quick scan, it looks like BRM gave more devotional talks there than anyone else, outside of GBH and the Presidents’ of BYU. BRM must have felt comfortable there to state “his truths”.
“After LDS Apostle McConkie gave a speech at BYU titled “The 7 Deadly Heresies,” Spencer Kimball told him to make clear in the published version that this wasn’t church doctrine, just McConkie speaking for himself. Deseret Book didn’t want that in the biography, either.”
Peggy Fletcher Stack, reviewing Edward Kimball’s “Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball.”
Bruce McKonkie, a prophet and seer of the Lord, has done more, save maybe Brigham Young*, to confuse the minds of Latter Day Saints, than any other man that ever lived in this church.
* not a scientific statement, there may be other equally confusing leaders.
On a less snarky note, I have wondered about number one, whether eternity will ultimately get boring. On number four, I’ve heard several other leaders say similar statements, including a president of the church. And I think we have no idea about number five, it seems particularly harsh to me.
Like I told my parents recently, I think our concept of prophets is a little off.
I’ve been amused that BRM’s introduction to the subject of his speech in both versions includes:
“There is a song or a saying or a proverb or a legend or a tradition or something, that speaks of seven deadly sins. I know nothing whatever about these and hope you do not.”
Perhaps he was trying to be funny in denigrating an ancient Christian tradition. But there are those who noted that he did know, at least experientialy, a great deal about two of them — pride and wrath.
The “seven deadly sins” is a grouping and classification of vices used in multiple Christian churches. In 590 AD Pope Gregory I revised a much older list to the current list. Thomas Aquinas uses and defends Gregory’s list in his “Summa theologica,” but calls them the “capital sins” because they are the head and form of all the others. They are pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth.
On the other hand, there are those who knew BRM personally (I didn’t) who found humor and humility in him rather than the pride and wrath some perceived in his speaking and writing. People are complicated.
BRM’s June 1980 talk may have been at least partly in response to Eugene England’s September 1979 talk to BYU honors students —“The Lord’s University?”—would address the Latter-day Saint ideal of continuing, life-long education through a review of, among other examples, the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression in knowledge and the interchange after that talk between England and BRM’s son Joseph, both BYU professors.
From a relatively even-handed review of the matter at http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-professor-and-apostle-correspond-eugene-england-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god :
“…The primary ‘heresy’ Elder McConkie warned against was the belief that ‘God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truth….’ He further stated that we cannot be saved unless we believe that the ‘truth as revealed to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.’ McConkie belittled those who think otherwise as having ‘the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp.’
McConkie’s talk immediately generated heated discussion among faculty and students. In ‘Lengthen Your Stride,’ a biography of Spencer W. Kimball’s Presidency years, Edward Kimball refers to this incident:
‘President Kimball was not doctrinaire, and he felt a need to interfere in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy. . . . President Kimball responded to the uproar [caused by the devotional] by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views and not official Church doctrine.’”
But in February 1981 BRM wrote to England, including quotations from the speech – not only the printed version – and asserted “…it is my province to teach the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.”
BRM also purported “I do not engage in controversy or discussion of divergent views, either orally or in writing…” And “[s]ometimes a prophet [presumably including then Apostle BRM] gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.” Also, “If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of [Brigham Young’s] doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.” I wonder if he’d be so eager to damn those who believe the false portions of BRM’s doctrines.
Heresy Three: Temple marriage does not guarantee exaltation.
Yea….tell that to D&C 132.
I think the fact that the talk was revised before print publication is a good thing — it shows”the Church” or at least the President did not endorse the more extreme statements made in the talk as delivered. It shows there is some review and correction that goes on. We can say the same thing about changes made to the second edition of Mormon Doctrine. It also shows that “the Church” does not endorse the stronger versions of infallibility often repeated by LDS teachers of religion and the general membership.
As for Elder McConkie in general, sure it would have been nice if he had been a little less forceful in his opinions and a little more able to distinguish his own opinions from God’s own truth. But his many books had as much influence as they did in part because no other leaders, apart from Joseph Fielding Smith, put in the time and effort to write on LDS doctrinal topics. It would have been nice if David O. McKay or Hugh B. Brown had written a more progressive version of Mormon Doctrine. They didn’t. Elder McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine filled a real need within the Church at the time when a lot of adult converts were entering the Church — a doctrinal handbook of sorts that explained what Mormons are supposed to believe. It was a flawed attempt, perhaps, but better than no attempt. Would that the several apostles who found many errors in it and criticized McConkie for writing it would have put pen to paper and produced a better book.
Faith, they are called “charlas”, not platicas . I learned the pure Castillano!
I also realized that this whole episode fits nicely with Happy Hubbies Modus Operandi post from a few days ago. Don’t denounce it, just pretend it never happened.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t an apostle’s primary mission to serve as witness of Christ to the world, as opposed to endlessly haranguing the already-converted with nonsense, McConkie to Bednar? Didn’t Jos. Smith at one pt send all these guys to Europe to preach? What happened? I dearly wish they’d GO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE somewhere and leave us all the hell alone for a while.
Nobody has ever clarified the Adam/ God denial thing to me. Can I not become like God, in theory, if not in practice? Can I not inherit all that He has, eventually, in theory? Do we no longer believe in eternal progression? Can we not rely on the Saviour’s atoning love to redeem us from our sins after repentance? Is there no hope for me? Perhaps I am, of all women, most miserable.
I generally agree with Dave B that the changes were good things. Furthermore, your characterization of two of them is seriously flawed:
1. You claim that the bit about deliberately reading his talk was in the audio but missing from the transcript. If your link to the FairMormon side-by-side comparison is to be believed, it was just the opposite. They have it in the transcript but not the audio. If FairMormon got it wrong and you still want to link to their comparison, you need to be explicit that you disagree with their work.
2. You claim that the written version of his remarks about temple work for the dead had the opposite meaning of his spoken remarks. That does not strike me as a reasonable conclusion. The transcript certainly represents a softening of his spoken remarks, but the point is the same–if you had a chance in this life and rejected it, temple work does not give you a second chance. Furthermore, that does not wipe out the value of temple work as you imply it does. If you did not have chance in this life, then temple work is critical to your salvation. And, as the phrase inserted into the transcript states (more succinctly than I), we cannot judge who did or did not have a chance or what constitutes a rejection of that chance, so we do the work for everybody.
Bishop bill
I appreciate your viewpoint on “Charlas”…I speak spanish everyday and i know the terms and meanings. . The term charlas are definatly used wider with an LDS audience since that’s what we did everyday for 2 years. They are synonym terms in castellano dictionaries.
Platicas is not a regional slang term. In true castellano they are used interchangeably. My “primo” has lived in Madrid for 30 years and even he does not speak pure castellano. Just as we do not speak pure old english.
This is not an attack on you….but when LDS RM state I learned the pure castellano…to what are they referring? In chile they definitely do not speak real castellano.
I think that LDS RM communities are stating “I do not use regional Mexican terms or speak like ( another rival country that is deemed inferior.)” Anyway LDS RM communities would be an interesting “discussion”.
I enjoyed your past pictures of Chile. Anyways thank you again
Pura Vida.
.
Independent of the differences between the audio and the written versions, the “heresies” themselves are worth some critical examination.
1. McConkie’s view on this one seems to derive from a view of truth as finite and God–as an exalted human–having absorbed all of it. My view is that some truths are finite. I don’t believe that new laws of physics are being created somewhere in the universe–they are what they are, and God knows all of them. But in another sense, truth is infinite. I don’t believe that God knows in which specific experiments Schroedinger’s cat emerges dead and in which it emerges alive. Each time that experiment is run, the outcome is a new truth for God to learn. Unlike McConkie, I would only insist that God understand the underlying uncertainty principle.
2. McConkie is dead wrong on this one. I would not argue that evolution and the gospel have been harmonized, but I absolutely believe that they eventually will be.
3. McConkie is completely correct on this one. His statement does not negate D&C 132. Verse 7 reads “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise… are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead;” (emphasis mine). The Holy Spirit of promise does not take the form of a temple officiator. It may or may not be present at the ceremony. If it is not, it may enter the picture later. But it might not, in which case, exaltation will not happen.
4. I think I covered this one in my previous comment.
5. Although McConkie mentions spheres, I suspect that he viewed progression in the traditionally linear manner with hard barriers erected at certain points defining the different kingdoms. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of his listeners have interpreted it that way. But there are other interpretations of eternal progression. Imagine a resident of Flatland. She can progress in any direction on the plane that defines Flatland as far as she wants, forever. But she cannot progress into the third dimension. She cannot even comprehend that the third dimension exists. That is how I see the kingdoms of glory. And it is fully compatible with McConkie’s claim.
6. Interpreting Brigham Young’s word on the subject of Adam and God using orthodox Mormonism as a guide yields nonsense. We certainly do not worship a man who supposedly lived on the earth 6,000 years ago and kicked himself out of the Garden of Eden for breaking his own commandments. If that is what McConkie was denouncing, then he was correct. But there are other interpretations of what Brigham Young was saying (none of which I can quite wrap my head around). Some even have the sheen of quasi-orthodoxy. One such interpretation can be found here.
7. I am grateful that McConkie was correct on this one too.
Apostles should be out converting the Gentiles instead of endlessly haranguing the Saints. We already know the program!
Faith, I was just having fun. The Spanish we learned in Chile was anything but Castilian from Espana. But they called is Castillano in school, never Espanol.
Lastlemming, I stand by my OP. The portion is in the Audio (I listened to it), but is missing from the BYU transcript. FairMormon says just the opposite, that it is in the transcript (its not) and it was never in the audio (it is). I’ll assume this is just a mistake in the FairMormon editing, but it really hits home how ironic the editing was. He purposely said I’m reading this so there can be no misunderstanding. “I want the words to be the way you heard them” And what happened, they changed the words that they heard, and then to add insult, removed the part where he said this!
During his time as an Apostle BRM used his deep and resonant voice to deliver doctrine with authority and confidence. As a teenager, he made me feel like I could never know enough or be good enough. After, serving a mission, I decided it was healthier for me to tune him out and focus instead on GA talks that lifted me. As my assessment of BRM continued to evolve, I ultimately concluded that he was called to the Q12 at a time when nepotism was an acceptable practice for filling top leadership positions in the Church, that always having an answer was more important to him than being pastoral, that being feared was better than being loved, and that he was something of an outlier (perhaps even an intermittent problem) as Apostles go. I suspect that the Church would gladly buy back all remaining copies of BRM’s book, Mormon Doctrine, if they could, not just because some of the content is embarrassing but also because having the word “Mormon” in the title is a win for Satan. Isn’t it interesting how the signature books of some Apostles go from required reading to out of print soon after they die?
I stand by my OP. The portion is in the Audio (I listened to it), but is missing from the BYU transcript.
I did not listen to the audio, so I’ll take your word for it.
I think Faith is right about GA’s airing their more strident views at BYU before wider audiences. This may partly function as workshopping or test-driving, although they may not think of it that way. They may think of it simply as speaking in a venue that has opportunities more frequently, or they may be thinking of the BYU student body as the future of the church and the most important group to persuade of their values, even if broader audiences are ‘lost’.
Regardless, you’ve got me thinking about how this phenomenon (of expressing more strident views in more private settings) affects church culture and the fascination with whisper networks and insider knowledge. I’ve often seen a certain excitement over hearing and repeating alleged GA views that are “unfiltered” or unofficial. We are discussing solo opinions as likely to be less defensible and less durable over time, and viewing consensus as generally a positive indicator. But plenty of members really believe the opposite–that contrarian loner views are the most authentic, most prophetic. It’s connected to the persecution complex as well, the idea that there is a war on truth, and the perception that if these strident takes ‘can’t’ be said more openly, they are obviously the most tantalizing. There’s a prestige axis too, that if you go to the competitive church school, you get an ‘inside scoop,’ and you assume it’s a scoop rather than your time being co-opted for a contrarian old guy to vent to a captive audience. It frustrates me, but I can also see how people draw some comparisons between BRM-style guys and old testament style prophets. How do we get people to put proportionally more value on durable if boring ideas and less on sensationalism?
P,
Correct, but they are not apostles. So they are doing precisely what false apostles do.
What drivel! (The talk, not this post.). Talk about getting caught in the thick of thin things.
I’m too young for BRM other than people still quoting Mormon Doctrine when I was growing up. But now I can see why people aren’t fans. (I also read the letter to Eugene Englund and thought it ridiculous.)
I have a copy of Mormon Doctrinen 1975 printning in good condition.
I also have LDS Reference Encyclopedia by Melvin R Brooks which is more used, 1965 printing.
So there were other people who did similar things. For the Great and Abomnable Church, Brooks just quotes 1 Ne 14: 11, 13:6, 7 and 14:10.
The reference encyclopedia is much less emotional/opionated than mormon doctrine.
Oaks is the speaker we have now that sounds like you wouldn’t dare disagree with him, but the last one still pushing the anti gay marriage agenda. Which I do disagree with.
Re: General authorities test-driving their views at Church schools
As someone who has attended both BYU-I and BYU, I would argue that the general authorities test-drive on both liberal and conservative fronts–more of a liberal front at BYU, and more of a conservative front at BYU-I. For example, within the last decade there have been devotionals at BYU-I decrying “self-abuse” and that Lucifer ” would have you believe that you are descended from early forms of life that somehow crawled out of the sea and evolved into a human being. He would have you believe that you are the product of monkeys evolved into men.” I also heard some embarrassingly fawning talks on Joseph Smith and President Nelson.
On the other hand, Elder Ballard gave a devotional address at BYU a few years ago calling for greater tolerance toward the LGBT community, encouraging women to get an education, encouraging people to study Church history, and so on. Others have given similarly inclusive talks at BYU. Maybe I’m making mountains out of molehills, but having sat through many a devotional at both schools, it really seems like the Church is trying to cater to two different audiences and see what they can get away with while still retaining young members.
Is it my system or is the website not working well? Everything shows up way late – thus the double posts.
Good insights, lastlemming.
I’m the type of person that enjoys these talks even though some of them consider me a hertic.
Most folks these days can’t enjoy something unless it 100% agrees with them.
A more interesting question is how do errors doctrinal ot factual creep in. It is because we don’t know or pay attention to our history. Faith offers an object lesson here. The Iron Rod talk was given by Richard Poll , a BYzu political science professor in a church talk and republished in Dialogue. Richard Poelman gave a talk in GC on the difference between the church as a temporary institution and the gospel. It was later edited and re-recorded. The second and much more egregious example is that BRM didnt know or perhaps care that both JSjr and Joseph F Smith taught that movement between kingdoms was an essential part of the plan of salvation.It difficult for many to believe in prophets and apostles who can’t agree on essential elements of the plan of salvation. I personally knew BRM and had lunch with him on at least one occasion. I have read almost everything he ever wrote. My considered opinion is he did more damage to the gospel than any other church leader I can think of . I could multiple examples but he was wrong most of the time. Bellamy
Bellamy Brown:
Good point. J. Reuben Clark, while in the First Presidency, reassured a Church member who lived in Logan in a letter that He wrote her, that she did not have to agree with ETB’s political views to be a good member of the Church. To support his point, he noted that members of the Q12 couldn’t even agree on doctrine, let alone politics.
More recently, M. Russell Ballard observed a few years ago, while addressing a Missionary Conference (in a location that shall not be named), that it is very hard to get the Q12 to agree on any important issue.
Gotta love it…..
Taiwan Missionary, Where can we find a copy of that J. Reuben Clark letter?
Number 1 is a major problem for me. I believe that God, if the there is a God, is progressing. It’s foundational to my belief in Eternal Progression. I don’t believe in any of the omni’s, except omnibenevolent. I agree with Toad, that without Eternal Progression: “eternity will ultimately get boring.”
Mormons used to believe that you should study out of the best books. That belief has devolved into we should read the scriptures and words of modern Mormon prophets. Do we still believe that you can take knowledge learned in this life into the next?
President Hinkley seemed to back off our belief in theosis. In order a appease the Christian Right, we have been on the defensive about the ultimate goal of our Plan of Salvation (aka Plan of Happiness). I don’t want anything to do with BRM and the Christian Right.
Wondering:
The letter was mentioned in a book that I recently read that was titled, “Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics.”” (I don’t have it anymore; not enough room for all the books I read). If I remember correctly, the letter is cited in a footnote to a section in the book that deals with Church members in the Logan area getting active with ETB’s political causes. According to the book, a woman in Logan, not fond of ETB’s politics, wrote J. Reuben Clark, who was 1st Pres. 2nd Couns. at the time, seeking his reassurance, because the woman was facing pressure from others that so many of us have faced: if you are a good Member of the Church, you have to believe X.” In this case, X was ETB’s politics. In his letter, Pres. Clark made the point V about doctrinal disagreements in the Q12.
If I remember correctly, the author of the book I read saw Clark’s letter, but does not own it.
Hope this helps. It is not a mass print book. I got it at Benchmark Books.
I replied to Wondering‘s question, giving him the info he asked for. But it failed to post. Was there a Problem?
Give it an hour or 2, Taiwan. It may yet show up. Yes, there’s a system problem.
I am reluctant to belabor this issue but I had a conversation with Marion D Hanks a wonderful guy ) once about movement between kingdoms. When i asked him what he thought he smiled leaned back into his chair and said ” it ii interesting that you should ask that question because it came up in a meeting of GAs just last week. Joseph Fielding Smith expressed in very strong terms that there could never be any such progression , then Pres McKay spoke and said he did not think that there was anything in the scriptures that said there could not be ” It was much later that I read the material on this issue from Joseph Smith ,Brigham Young an d Joseph F smith ( all of whom agreed there was such progression ) that I realized none of the GA actually knew what they were talking about.
Bellamy:
Thanks for sharing your Marion Hanks anecdote! I will add it to my bag of ammunition on this topic. Please, belabor all you want! Any additional nails in the coffin of “Anti-Progression-Between-Kingdoms-ism” are always welcome:
Taiwan since you asked I recommend you review the penultimate chapter of Terhune Givens book “ The Christ Who Heals” specifically pages 118 – 126 for the most complete discussion of this subject from a Universalist viewpoint I know of in LDS literature. There are a number of great books on the larger issue from David Hart among others. You might also look at John12 :32 and recognize that the Greek word “heilko” which is translated “draw” in the KJV can appropriately be translated as “drag” see Hart “ The New Testament “.