Bruce R. Mcconkie And Mormon Doctrine

[Trencher7]

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.

These details can be found in "David O' McKay & The Rise of Modern Mormonism". The first presidency wanted McConkie to make over 1,000 "changes" (not necessarily doctrines). I can give more details when I have it in front of me. I also got the impression from the book that McConkie reprinted MD when President McKay was quite old and without official blessing to do so.

[cinepro]

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

As Trencher has noted, the Greg Prince bio of McKay covers the issue from another angle, and it is implied that President McKay's declining health played a part in the opportunity being presented for a 2nd edition.

David O. McKay kept a steady pace of travel until he entered his 90s. His deteriorating health led to the appointment of an additional counselor to the first presidency, as the existing leaders were increasingly infirm and often unable to preside at church meetings. He died on January 18, 1970, at age 96 and was buried in the Salt Lake City Cemetery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._McKay

[Bardman]

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.

I'm sure Elder McConkie considered nothing that actually made it into Mormon Doctrine to be speculation or opinion. He may have been wrong when he thought that, but I'm sure that's what he thought. That is, if he indeed deserved the reputation for gospel scholarship he enjoyed during his lifetime. And, IMO, he did.

[Lamanite]

I'm sure Elder McConkie considered nothing that actually made it into Mormon Doctrine to be speculation or opinion. He may have been wrong when he thought that, but I'm sure that's what he thought. That is, if he indeed deserved the reputation for gospel scholarship he enjoyed during his lifetime. And, IMO, he did.

IIRC Joseph Fielding (his son)said that not only was he (BRM) unrepentant (my word) for the books contents, the only misgiving that he had was that he gave the Saint's too much, meaning we didn't have to earn the knowledge.

[stn9]

I highly recommend David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism on this point (I don't have it in fromt of me so I can't cite pages or post excerpts). Also, I did find a long post on this here.

[jwhitlock]

I'm sure Elder McConkie considered nothing that actually made it into Mormon Doctrine to be speculation or opinion. He may have been wrong when he thought that, but I'm sure that's what he thought. That is, if he indeed deserved the reputation for gospel scholarship he enjoyed during his lifetime. And, IMO, he did.

I agree; I'm sure that he didn't consider it opinion or speculation either. And that's what's troubling.

There's no doubt that he had considerable gospel scholarship. And there's no doubt that not all of it was correct. That's normal, in most people, and I don't have a problem with that.

But most scholars also realize that an ongoing absolutist attitude with everything you write is going to get you into trouble someday.

[consiglieri]

I highly recommend David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism on this point (I don't have it in fromt of me so I can't cite pages or post excerpts). Also, I did find a long post on this here.

Wow!

That link was quite helpful, and tends to give a more balanced view of what happened.

Thanks.

--Consiglieri

[rpn]

Elder McConkie himself admitted that what he'd written about people of color was wrong (albeit not until 1978).

And I feel quite sure that Elder McKonkie believed that he was not republishing in opposition to Pres. McKay's wishes, even though Pres. McKay's take was that he had. I don't think the list of errors in the first ed. is public and we don't know what got changed entirely. (Naming a single faith as the great and abominable church was one thing changed in the second ed.)

I think that the title (and the fact that the church's most prominent scriptorian apostle aside from his father in law Joseph Fielding Smith authored it) helped people be comfortable with letting someone else do the thinking for them. I'm sure you've notice that there is more recognition today about how the writings of apostles are viewed by the church and a pre-publication review process that is required to avoid repeating the difficulty.

Church members do have to come to grips with the fact that when we stand at judgment and argue that Apostle so and so told us to do something; or we watched Apostle so and so do something and modeled our behavior --- those responses will NOT be sufficient to absolve our sins of commission or omission. Following our leaders is good, but the Gospel has another obligation, that we get spiritual confirmation of the application in our own life., that the principle that leader is telling us is true, or what they have asked us to do is God's will for us. This is for our protection --- so we are not lead astray by fallible humans ----and also to be sure we are exercising our agency ---- rather than blindly following celebrity or popular opinion.

[cinepro]

Someone posted the original journal entries, and here are some of the pertinent ones:

At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder

Bruce R. McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine," stating that it had caused

considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source

of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this

book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until

after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given

it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of

the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommended that the

book not be republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected

form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all

responsibility for it; and that it not be recognized as an authoritative

book.

I said further that the question had arisen as to whether a public

correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts

which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect; but

it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of

the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First

Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a

question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that

it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must

answer for it.

I reported that the First Presidency had talked with Brother McConkie

this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do.

He will not attempt to republish the book, nor to say anything by letter,

and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in

accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate

those things concerning which question has been raised as contained in the

book.

Thursday, January 28, 1960

Emphasis added

http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net/kn/random/mo-doc.txt

Also, the blog entry linked above argues that Elder Peterson's copy editing background may have added numerous grammatical corrections to the total number, but the irregardless, the following journal entry indicates the changes were still significant:

These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book "Mormon

Doctrine" had not been read by the reading committee; that President

Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was

published. Elder Peterson stated that the extent of the corrections which

he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776

pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be

under the rule that no book be published without a specific approval of

the First Presidency.

I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee

should be announced to the Twelve.

It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to

republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive

repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that

the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should

be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of

the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this

decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk

to the author.

Friday, January 8, 1960

Emphasis added

[jadams_4242]

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

There are many controversial books and verses written by many church eaders which were "non inspired" and only of personal conjecture. Which the "antis" will definately let you hear all about them whenever they get the chance and of course the advesary will bring this to yer attn: when he feels you will be susceptable to the misleading statements and the context that anti people put there spin on it. What i do when i see stuff like this is to research it to the max, pray about it, use a little common sense, then remember all the magnifecent and wonderous blessings that we as worthy L.D.S members enjoy and understand where they come from. this church has not all perfect members all the time, nor does it have "inspired" authorities all the time. We are all human, we all make missjudgements from time to time. And so do G.A,s occasionally when on there own personal time. No matter what imperfections we may find in the churh history at times, there is still the undeniable and unchallenged confirmations of the spirit that will guide you to knowledge of whatever you need to find, just "worthily" knock and the door will be open.

[Hammer]

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.

Well I believe it is only fair to the author's and the membership.

[Aquilifer]

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.

Correct, but I think that Elder McConkie's retraction of his statements on the blacks and the priesthood issue shows that he could certainly get it wrong (and more importantly, acknowledge publicly that he got it wrong), his authoritative "certainty" notwithstanding.

What gets my goat about certain entries in MD is McConkie's absolute certainty of tone when he makes statements that make me want to scream for some sort of reference. Some statements just have no precedent or authority backing them up -- just the naked assertion that this is Mormon Doctrine. Period. Don't even bother thinking otherwise. Yet it's clear that at the very least he screwed up on the priesthood issue.

As others suggest, the book is by and large a very good statement of Mormon beliefs, and I think that my generation comes down a little too harshly on it -- there are just a few portions that leave me totally scratching my head, going "Nuh-uh, don't think so."

[juliann]

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.

Haha. It is Mormon Speculation. I am very glad to report I haven't seen this thing whipped out as the ultimate source for many years now.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Haha. It is Mormon Speculation. I am very glad to report I haven't seen this thing whipped out as the ultimate source for many years now.

This should be a great lesson to all who think that "all" LDS walk in lockstep with one another. If this were indeed a cult, such things would be crushed by church leadership.

[Brade]

I'm not the biggest McConkie fan with respect to his opinions on various things but I've never doubted for a second that he was completely committed to the cause and a very humble man. I love that when he was called and asked to not reprint his book he simply said that he'd do whatever they wanted him to do. Very impressive. More than anything he ever wrote or said I believe that shows what sort of man he was.

[Lightbearer]

I offer a big CFR to produce one statement from Mormon Doctrine (2nd edition), other than the "blacks and the priesthood" or "Evolution" (I know the latter is a hot button around here and do not wish to restart that old argument), that is not doctrine or is unsupported by any other references. I would be interested in seeing just one example of his false or speculative statements. It seems that many loved to marginalize him as an Apostle and criticize the book without even reading it and I get tired of it. As far as his non-PR tone, I say too bad, and just because he was "so sure of himself" is no reason to reject his teachings out of hand. Just give us an example if you can.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I offer a big CFR to produce one statement from Mormon Doctrine (2nd edition), other than the "blacks and the priesthood" or "Evolution" (I know the latter is a hot button around here and do not wish to restart that old argument), that is not doctrine or is unsupported by any other references. I would be interested in seeing just one example of his false or speculative statements. It seems that many loved to marginalize him as an Apostle and criticize the book without even reading it and I get tired of it. As far as his non-PR tone, I say too bad, and just because he was "so sure of himself" is no reason to reject his teachings out of hand. Just give us an example if you can.

Second the motion. (Don't currently have access to the Stick of Bruce where I am.)

[jwhitlock]

I offer a big CFR to produce one statement from Mormon Doctrine (2nd edition), other than the "blacks and the priesthood" or "Evolution" (I know the latter is a hot button around here and do not wish to restart that old argument), that is not doctrine or is unsupported by any other references. I would be interested in seeing just one example of his false or speculative statements. It seems that many loved to marginalize him as an Apostle and criticize the book without even reading it and I get tired of it. As far as his non-PR tone, I say too bad, and just because he was "so sure of himself" is no reason to reject his teachings out of hand. Just give us an example if you can.

Really. Have I - or others - "loved to marginalize him as an Apostle and criticize the book without even reading it"? Have we "reject[ed] his teachings out of hand"? Please CFR yourself on that one, before you get too frothed up about this.

Here are some references on your CFR (all 1966 edition):

"Races of Man", p.616

"Caste System", p.114

"Cremation", p.172

Speculation on Adam and his position in the premortal existence on p.16 given as fact.

"Xmas" on p.852

"Holy Father", definition #2, p.358

As to Elder McConkie being "so sure of himself", I think this quote from "The Millennial Messiah (p.224)" is a fair example of the kind of absolutist presentation that he tended towards:

Let this fact be engraved in the eternal records with a pen of steel: the Jews were cursed, and smitten, and cursed anew because they rejected the gospel, cast out their Messiah, and crucified their King. Let the spiritually illiterate suppose what they may, it was the Jewish denial and rejection of the Holy One of Israel, whom their fathers worshipped in the beauty of holiness, that has made them a hiss and a byword in all nations and that has taken millions of their fair sons and daughters to untimely graves.

Lest you continue to misunderstand how I approach Elder McConkie, I'll state the following. I did support him as an Apostle and he had much of great worth to teach. I simply tend to be troubled by his absolutist approach on what he considered to be fact - facts that didn't sometimes hold up as such. I'll agree that most of what he taught is sound. However, those things that were not sound - and presented in the same manner as that which was sound - have made me look towards more balanced sources in Church leadership for doctrinal guidance.

[Aquilifer]

Lest you continue to misunderstand how I approach Elder McConkie, I'll state the following. I did support him as an Apostle and he had much of great worth to teach. I simply tend to be troubled by his absolutist approach on what he considered to be fact - facts that didn't sometimes hold up as such. I'll agree that most of what he taught is sound. However, those things that were not sound - and presented in the same manner as that which was sound - have made me look towards more balanced sources in Church leadership for doctrinal guidance.

Word. His approach is worthy of his profession as a lawyer (eg, writing a persuasive brief that leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the reader as to the strength of his argument). But I don't think that this style is conducive to making definitive doctrinal statements in areas where there isn't much authoritative material to draw upon.

I enjoy much of what Elder McConkie had to say and write, and some of his talks are among the most powerful I've ever heard. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with him or his approach on certain issues.

[thesometimesaint]

Lets add in PG's 247-256.

And yes I did and still do support BRM as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. But that does not make his personal opinions binding on me, or any other member of the Church.

[stn9]

I think the following on the "Second Chance Theory" is his personal interpretation and is incorrect even though he supports it with (or rather, derives it from) scripture:

"There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God."

I do not believe in the "One Chance Theory" he postulates as it clearly seems to contradict other scripture (D&C 138):

"29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

"30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

"31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

"32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

"33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,

"34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

McConkie's supposed "second hand gospel message" or "lesser gospel" or "partial gospel" (i.e., "...there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those . . . will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God") is contradicted by the scriptures and other prophets. To wit:

1. The gospel of Jesus Christ is preached to all the dead (D&C 138:30), even to "the disobedient who had rejected the truth" (D&C 138:29).

2. The gospel preached to the dead is the same gospel preached to the living excepting that ordinances must be performed vicariously (D&C 138:33-34).

3. Baptism is only required to enter the celestial kingdom: "A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God, without being born of water and the Spirit" (TPJS, 12); and "The ordinances of the house of God are expressly for the Church of the Firstborn" (Brigham Young in JD 8:154; the "Church of the Firstborn" are those of the celestial kingdom as in D&C 76:54).

4. Therefore, the dead who accept the gospel and "who repent will be redeemed" in the celestial kingdom "through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God" (D&C 138:58).

That's just one off the top of my head.

[LifeOnaPlate]

stn9: excellent analysis. Thanks.

[Maidservant]

I have the paperback!

I haven't read this book since I have been an adult (although said paperback is on my shelf and will prolly stay there as a classic). But I read it quite a bit as a youth (the book was in our home). I think it was helpful to me at that period of my life with the sheer number of topics brought together, introducing me to the deeper wonders of what was possible to know in the gospel and sparking my thirst.

[stn9]

I still use it from time to time and find it helpful for those same reasons; but I usually use it either when there's a question I'm asked and it's something I don't have the time, energy or interest to fully invetigate, or when I'm doing an initial scan for sources he cites. I'm more interested in mastering the sources he mastered than in mastering his ideas, which I think he would approve of since he said we should all do what he has done and study the gospel ourselves.

That reminds me of a story Elder Hales told us at a regional conference some years back. Elder Hales was then a newly called member of the Presiding Bishopric speaking for the first time in the Salt Lake Temple (4th floor assembly room, IIRC). He noticed pictures of Joseph and Hyrum and wondered "Where art thou, Oliver?" (I think those were his exact words.) It bothered him so much that he went to Elder McConkie's office to ask about the lack of an Oliver painting, and Elder McConkie responded by picking up his set of scriptures and saying in a serious tone (as near as I can recall Elder Halers report), "See these scriptures? They're the same as yours." Bishop Hales understood what he meant: Go find the answer yourself.

Elder Hales later found the answer in the Doctrine and Covenants and went and told Elder McConkie what he had learned, which pleased Elder McConkie. But apparently Elder Hales felt a little playful or perhaps slightly put off, for he said was just waiting for a chance to return the favor. He said Elder McConkie hated doing the administrative side of things as a General Authority, so one day when Elder McConkie came to Bishop Hales with a question about numbers for a report of some kind (budgetary, I think), Bishop Hales picked up his calculator and said, "See this calculator? It's the same as yours." Elder McConkie took that as it was meant--playfully though pointedly--and said Elder Hales could come to him with doctrinal questions if he could come to him with administrative questions.

I think that's a great story.

[consiglieri]

You know, it's these kind of stories that really strengthen my testimony.

Who knew Elder Hales had such a sense of humor?

Or that Elder McConkie could be so readily humbled?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri