Bruce R. Mcconkie And Mormon Doctrine

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was surfing the web and found this...I know I am a johnny come lately. But, I never knew the controversy surrounding the book Mormon Doctrine.

This part specifically

Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect that:

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkieâ??s book, â??Mormon Doctrineâ?? recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, 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 to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[5]

McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960 at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the decision:

[McKay] 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...are corrected." Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."[4]

When the First Presidency met with McConkie about their decision, he responded, "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."[4]

In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie states that:

"On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder [spencer W.] Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkieâ??s mentor in making those changes. ... My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction."[3]

[Helorum]

Elder McConkie's book now carries the standard disclaimer at the front which states that the information contained therein represents the views of the author. The same disclaimer is found in President Hinckley's "Teachings" book.

[Lamanite]

Sounds like an anti Mormon website. I'm sure the Brethren never disagree!

[oceanblue]

I was surfing the web and found this...I know I am a johnny come lately. But, I never knew the controversy surrounding the book Mormon Doctrine.

This part specifically

It's interesting. I can't think of a single other book, (maybe Jesus the Christ, by Talmage?), that I remember seeing on as many Mormon bookshelves as a kid. I know my parents used that book all the time. Talk in church? Out pops Mormon Doctrine, Websters, a Quad and the latest 4 Ensigns. I bet I heard quotes from that book every other sunday growing up.

Seems like it wasn't until I first came the boards like this that I heard much of anything negative about MD.

I do remember an Elder who returned from serving in inner city Detriot roll his eyes once when members in an EQ meeting mentioned something about blacks in the pre-existance being less worthy - I guess that's from/in MD? And the ex-mish said "You can't trust much from that book anyway...". But that was a rare statement in my neck of the woods.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Elder McConkie's book now carries the standard disclaimer at the front which states that the information contained therein represents the views of the author. The same disclaimer is found in President Hinckley's "Teachings" book.

The article also says that he wrote the headings found at the beginning of all chapters in the "Standard Works". Did not know that either?????

[Sargon]

There was alot of controversy surrounding it. However, in it's final form the book overall can be a very useful tool. I am grateful to have it on my shelf.

[BCSpace]

There is relatively little in BRM's Mormon Doctrine to complain about. Nevertheless, it does not qualify as official LDS doctrine. You will find much of what it says in official LDS publications and it's even quoted on occasion. Only in those case are those portions of it considered doctrine.

[why me]

The information about mormon doctrine needs to be spread far and wide. The more church members know of the controversy the better it will be in the long run. That book is still doing its damage especially on the web. It is not only mormons that have used the book, the antis glorify it by quoting from it as much as possible along with Journal of Discourses by BY.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There was alot of controversy surrounding it. However, in it's final form the book overall can be a very useful tool. I am grateful to have it on my shelf.

I love the book...I read it all the time. The lastest version.

[thesometimesaint]

I have an original version on my bookshelf. 99% of the stuff in it is real LDS Doctrine. But that remaining 1% is some real lulu's.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's interesting. I can't think of a single other book, (maybe Jesus the Christ, by Talmage?), that I remember seeing on as many Mormon bookshelves as a kid. I know my parents used that book all the time. Talk in church? Out pops Mormon Doctrine, Websters, a Quad and the latest 4 Ensigns. I bet I heard quotes from that book every other sunday growing up.

Seems like it wasn't until I first came the boards like this that I heard much of anything negative about MD.

I do remember an Elder who returned from serving in inner city Detriot roll his eyes once when members in an EQ meeting mentioned something about blacks in the pre-existance being less worthy - I guess that's from/in MD? And the ex-mish said "You can't trust much from that book anyway...". But that was a rare statement in my neck of the woods.

Much of what is written in MD is either true, or harmless speculation. One must needs pay attention to the disclaimer at the front that the views are those of the author.

[Lamanite]

Is negro fence sitter in MD? Can't remember if it's Joseph Fielding or BRM. Two's peas in a pod. :-)

I love BRM's statement after the revelation on the Priesthood.

All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

[jwhitlock]

Much of what is written in MD is either true, or harmless speculation. One must needs pay attention to the disclaimer at the front that the views are those of the author.

The problem is that despite the disclaimer, many (most?) things in the book are not phrased as speculation. They are presented as fact, which to the casual reader can be misleading.

[SilverKnight]

On my mission we had a wise-guy gospel doctrine teacher who had an original, first-edition, copy of Mormon D he liked to whip out on us.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The problem is that despite the disclaimer, many (most?) things in the book are not phrased as speculation. They are presented as fact, which to the casual reader can be misleading.

The authoritative tone and title are unfortunate, but I also think saying "I believe" or "it seems as though" before every statement would be poor form.

[Bardman]

I remember being very annoyed at the responses I would get from people regarding MD. On the one hand, Bruce R. was heralded as one of the great intellects of Mormonism, a powerful speaker, an apostle, a man with an encyclopedic knowledge of the scriptures, and a seemingly unshakeable testimony.

On the other hand, Mormon Doctrine was being dismissed by all and sundry. I can't tell you the number of times my fellow missionaries would tell me that such-and-such was only "Elder McConkie's opinion." Well, opinion it may have been, but from what I can see, Bruce R. was a man to check his sources.

For myself, I think the problem was that Elder McConkie just pulled no punches. He didn't coddle people, whether members of the church or not. And some of what he wrote was just not acceptable from a public relations standpoint. Can you imagine the damage to the missionary effort in South America if he were allowed to continue to say what he did about Catholicism?

I don't mean to imply that the book is without error. Nothing produced by man is. But I think a lot of the criticism of Mormon Doctrine was carried over from earlier editions, despite it being continually corrected and updated.

I just sometimes got the impression that mormons were trying to dodge Bruce's bullets.

[rpn]

With the Apostle committee identifying about 1,000 errors of DOCTRINE in MD in the original version, one has to remember that one cannot read the book as though it correctly states DOCTRINE. The problem was that people relied on it without doing their own review of the scriptures and seeking their own testimony. And in some of the areas the pulling no punches can be just as easily described as propounding the prejudice of the past.

[jwhitlock]

The authoritative tone and title are unfortunate, but I also think saying "I believe" or "it seems as though" before every statement would be poor form.

You bring up a good point. Are the phrases "I believe", or "it seems", or "in my opinion" (or the equivalent) even used in MD at all?

I did a quick search on the above three phrases (LDS Library 2006) and found the following:

"I believe" - only used if Elder McConkie is quoting someone else using the phrase.

"it seems" - used twice.

"in my opinion" (also searched "my opinion") - never used.

Are there any other phrases that would give any indication of opinion or speculation that we could search on?

Not only does it appear that a tone of opinion or speculation is so rare in MD as to be almost non-existent, but the overall, very authoritative tone is meant to be the norm. I'm not sure that there was much of anything that Elder McConkie ever phrased or intended as "an opinion".

[BCSpace]

With the Apostle committee identifying about 1,000 errors of DOCTRINE in MD in the original version, one has to remember that one cannot read the book as though it correctly states DOCTRINE. The problem was that people relied on it without doing their own review of the scriptures and seeking their own testimony. And in some of the areas the pulling no punches can be just as easily described as propounding the prejudice of the past.

I think the main problem is the audacious title. Sure, the guidelines for what is and is not LDS doctrine have been around for a long time, but anyone outside the Church is probably going to think at least initially this is THE definitive work on LDS doctrine.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I find myself in agreement with about 95% of everything I've seen come out of Bruce McConkie. But then again, I used to use "Mormon Doctrine" to help prepare sunday school lessons, so I've read more of him than just what gets posted by critics.

Yep - he and I are 95% tight. But dang, that last 5% is a doozy!

LM

[consiglieri]

So, my question is, "What happened between 1960 and 1966 to change President McKay's mind about allowing a second edition of Mormon Doctrine?"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

One more thing--it is hard for me to give much credence to a tally of 1,000 doctrinal errors in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine.I doubt Mormons even have 1,000 doctrines.This seems somewhat hyperbolic.

[Bardman]

As to the authitative tone of the book, it was written in an encyclopedic format. The editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica don't preface their conclusions as "opinion." It is the nature of the format to state facts as being authoritative, since prior to being put into the article, they have been thoroughly researched and authenticated.

[BCSpace]

So, my question is, "What happened between 1960 and 1966 to change President McKay's mind about allowing a second edition of Mormon Doctrine?"

I didn't know he had any say over that. I do seem to recall that he opposed both Mormon Doctrine and Man, His Origin and Destiny(?) by Jospeh Fielding Smith but they went ahead anyway and got them published.

[jwhitlock]

As to the authitative tone of the book, it was written in an encyclopedic format. The editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica don't preface their conclusions as "opinion." It is the nature of the format to state facts as being authoritative, since prior to being put into the article, they have been thoroughly researched and authenticated.

That's fine, as long as what you are talking about is purely factual.

However, when opinion or speculation is presented as fact - something the Encyclopedia doesn't typically do - that's another case altogether.

[LDSBruin]

If I remember correctly, the sources in the David O. McKay bio show that he never really approved of the republication but rather he was approached by BRM with the request and gave a weak response which BRM took to be good enough for a reprint. My book is at home so I can't double check right now.

Also, the 1000 points (or whatever the large number was) of false doctrine were actually compiled as a list. While it might be hard to find 1000 points of official doctrine in the church, there is an infinite supply of things that are not doctrine of the church.