CHRISTIANS: The film "The Godmakers" should still be supported today despite it's sensationalist tone/style, excesses, and obsolete facts.

YOU WROTE
"Jewish members of the Anti-Defamation League said that _The Godmakers_, both book and film, reminded them of some of the worst examples of anti-Semitism that the Jews had experienced in days past."

MY RESPONSE
Really?
Could you please provide evidence that this is true and not contrived folklore?

Thank you.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 12th, 2011

The way you describe "The Godmakers" as not being complete fact (containing some fact, but also inaccuracy) is how the book "Mormon Doctrine" should be viewed.

• Report

by laie_techie on January 6th, 2011

The book "Mormon Doctrine" was written by a well known, practicing, Temple worthy Mormon, about HIS religion. "The Godmakers" was written by a non-Mormon about the Mormon religion. This is a significant difference!


"(containing some fact, but also inaccuracy) is how the book "Mormon Doctrine" should be viewed."

If there was as much inaccuracy in "Mormon Doctrine", as the LdS church claims there is in "The Godmakers", there is no way that Bruce R. McConkie would have gotten away with its circulation, let alone subsequent editions. "Mormon Doctrine" is far too heavily quoted on lds.org for it to contain any real inaccuracies; otherwise, all of the content on lds.org would need to be questioned for accuracy!

• Report

by k on January 6th, 2011

Thank you for your thought provoking answer K.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 7th, 2011

@K: Bruce R. McConkie was a Seventy when he published the first edition. He did so against the commands of The Twelve and the First Presidency. Over 1000 doctrinal errors were found in that first edition. The second edition also wasn't Church sanctioned, but at least most of those inaccuracies were removed. The third edition removed sections containing McConkie's explanation of the Priesthood ban. There is some truth and some good stuff in "Mormon Doctrine" but it must be read carefully to distinguish between official doctrine and McConkie's opinions.

• Report

by laie_techie on January 8th, 2011

Laie:

Can you supply me with a list of all official Mormon doctrines, so that I can read through the book to know what is true and what isn't?


"Bruce R. McConkie was a Seventy when he published the first edition. He did so against the commands of The Twelve and the First Presidency. Over 1000 doctrinal errors were found in that first edition."

But since the LdS church allowed the book to be continued to be sold, PLUS it provided McConkie with help for a second edition, PLUS most importantly, they promoted him to a higher calling within the church (which should indicate that GOD himself felt he was worthy, does it not?)...all of this shows by their actions that the book "Mormon Doctrine" was not a problem. If it had been, the church would have wanted to distance itself from the lies, since the LdS church would not want to be seen to actively or inactively be supporting lies would they?

• Report

by k on January 9th, 2011

This is a complicated matter. Bruce R. McConkie published the book on his own so the Church could not stop it from being sold. In fact, the Twelve and the First Presidency reviewed the book only after it had been published because it was causing quite a stir. It was during that review that one apostle found over 1000 errors. McConkie was told to recant the book, but he refused. Years later, when it became apparent that McConkie was going to publish a second edition without regard to the Brethren, two apostles were assigned to at least do a cursory check on doctrine. Things which were McConkie's opinion still made it in, but at least there was nothing contradicting official Church doctrine and teaching.

Why was McConkie called to the Apostleship if his book was so bad? McConkie's father-in-law was Joseph Fielding Smith, so maybe Smith pulled some strings. Maybe McConkie had settled down and repented of some of the stuff published (particularly in the first edition).

• Report

by laie_techie on January 9th, 2011

Ditto what K said.

And if what McConkie did was so bad then:

1) Why wasn't he brought before LdS Church Authorities to be reprimanded and/or disciplined in some other way?

2) Why were BOTH editions of "Mormon Doctrine" (until recently) so heavily cited in Official LdS Church publication - including Church Education System (CES) materials and curriculum?

3) And if the alleged 1,067 doctrinal errors were so egregious then why have they been with held from LdS Church Members in particular and the public in general?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 9th, 2011

"3) And if the alleged 1,067 doctrinal errors were so egregious then why have they been with held from LdS Church Members in particular and the public in general?"

And that is EXACTLY why this is so confusing and questionable from a non-LdS point of view, in my opinion. On one hand the LdS church is saying the book had 1,067 errors and is not doctrinal or even mainly correct. On the other hand, the church doesn't distance itself, publically correct the misrepresented doctrines, or denounce the author in any way at all. In fact the LdS church promotes the book by quoting it hundreds of times on its official website and promotes the author to a position of high leadership. It's like the person that says "listen to what I say, but do not pay attention to what I do".

If "Mormon Doctrine" is NOT in fact Official Mormon Doctrine...then make available Official Mormon Doctrine so that there will be true of understand of the true LdS faith. It is pretty simple!

• Report

by k on January 9th, 2011

All I would add is, "Amen!"

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 9th, 2011

I feel we are just rehashing what has been addressed countless times. No, I don't have a list of the 1000+ errors in the first edition. I don't know if a list was made for the second edition. All three editions include the disclaimer that it is not an official Church publication and any opinions contained therein are Bruce R. McConkie's. While McConkie received access to two apostles, the Church did not review the book before publication.

Mormon doctrine is so broad and encompassing, that I don't know if it all can be enumerated. For LdS the Scriptures are a subset of our doctrine, but they are the hardest to change. Everything beyond that must be examined and classified as doctrine, current policy, or current teaching.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains the following: “There are many subjects, about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the
Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.” (M. Gerald Bradford and Larry E. Dahl, “Doctrine,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:395.) (I found this at www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf )

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
http://www.allaboutmormons.com/Blog/official_mormon_doctrine_convert_mormonism_ENG_7.php

• Report

by laie_techie on January 9th, 2011

OK, then since we're rehashing old questions:
How exactly do we know what IS and what IS NOT "official LdS Church doctrine"?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 9th, 2011

@Laie
YOU WROTE
"Mormon doctrine is so broad and encompassing, that I don't know if it all can be enumerated."

MY RESPONSE
Thus it can and does encompass whatever a Mormon does or does not it to. And thus, that same Mormon can believe pretty much whatever they want to as long as they do so privately while towing the party line publicly.

Cross the line publicly and you risk excommunication.

And THIS is why systematic theology - a mainstay of Biblical Christianity - is impossible under current LdS Theology.

In other words: There is NO anchor and the boats (i.e. individual members) can be tossed to and fro by any wind of doctrine that appeals to and pleases them.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 10th, 2011

Thank you again.
The other question got quarantined BTW, that's why I did this new variation.

And, again, for those in the viewing audience who are unaware, Laie is a Mormon.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 6th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

And for the record I never said that the Tanner had anything to do with The Godmakers - please reread the question and description slowly and completely and you'll see that the exact opposite is clearly stated.

The last interview that I heard with Ed Decker nothing had changed - he was still the pompous, arrogant, grand standing "Tough Guy, Jerk for the Lord" that he was in the 1980's. In fact, he stated that there was NOTHING in the Godmakers book or film that wasn't true and that he would pay anyone who found an error some $,$$$ amount if they proved him wrong.

If you can't tell I'm not an Ed Decker fan.

;-)

Here's a link to that interview BTW:

Episode 90: Ed Decker
John Larsen interviews Ed Decker, the author the God Makers and founder of Saints Alive in Jesus.

DOWNLOAD AND LISTEN: http://mormonexpression.com/podcast/feed/MormonExpression90.mp3

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2011