From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:09:20 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17800@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <f8Rg02xO2dG001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>>The then-prophet, David O. McKay, stated in his own diaries that he and
>>>others found hundreds of doctrinal errors in this book.
>>
>>Then why does the LDS church allow a book to be sold under the title,
>>_MORMON DOCTRINE_, at all the LDS bookstores across the world, that
>
>This was one of Pres. McKay's objections, the title.  They did
>ask him to withdraw the book and he corrected some errors for
>the second edition.  The book was not published by the church,
>but published privately.  The church seems monolithic, but it
>isn't.  From time to time apostles have published theological
>treatises that consisted of opinions not accepted by many other
>Mormons.  So it was in this case.  I can name you a dozen books
>that have the same problem.  In fact, I can't think of many
>that don't have errors in them.  That's the nature of human writing.
>Once someone is an apostle, they aren't about to kick him out of the quorum 
>because they don't agree with all his opinions.  Also, many of the 
>apostles probably *did* agree with McConkie, and no one wants to have a 
>purge in the quorum of people who aren't entirely doctrinally correct
>by their own view (I hope, anyway).  That would be pretty arrogant
>and just start fights.  

Sounds pretty hairy for the "one true church" doesn't it?

>>Friend, as long as the missionaries can whip out the book to "prove"
>>a point to me, then likewise I should have the same ability.  I have
>
>The missionaries really shouldn't be using that book.  As far as I
>know, they are supposed to use the scriptures plus two or three
>books written for the purpose, such as Talmage's Articles of Faith,
>and Jesus the Christ, and Richards' Marvelous Work and a Wonder.
>These *are* published by the church, although that doesn't mean
>they are scripture either.  What the missionary did is an error
>that does not validate the book as canon.

I don't think the book is canon and never did.  All I think is that the
book couldn't be heretical, and it is alright for the missionaries to
show me quotes to prove their points, and likewise, it is alright for me
to do the same.  But it is a minor point really. I have gotten to where
when I meet with a new missionary that I have never met with or debated,
I just ask him up front, do you want to use this book as a reference to
quote from or not.  If they say no, I put it away.  You'd probably be
surprised that I have never had a missionary say he didn't want to use it!
Only one couple has ever told me that, and I have met with a lot of
bishops, missionaries and other mormons.

>The other thing you fail to realize, is that Mormonism contains
>a wide spectrum of people of different beliefs.  You seem to
>act like everyone believes the same or should.  Why don't you
>just argue against beliefs you see someone actually defend
>rather than someone who is dead and can't defend his?  

I do discuss what members believe.  The problem is that they change it on
me!


>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc