Defending Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

[Somebodyz]

Lightbearer:

I doubt that even BRM would want to belong to your church of the inerrant BRM that you're trying to set up.

Just where has Lightbearer done this?

You are out of line here.

[a_little_taller]

I know all of you hate him and desire to discredit him because of his opinion on Organic Evolution, and because of his un-politically correct manner, but I still defy anyone to point to 10 items in the book that are proven to be doctrinally wrong.

I don't hate him or wish to discredit him. I respect and honor him for his many years of faithful service to the church and his efforts to teach the gospel to the world. The man stayed in my home for two nights and I found him to be good-humored and definitely a man of unusual substance. I invited him to stand in as I was ordained an Elder, but he declined due to the fact that he was expecting his ride to the airport any minute and didn't want to disrupt that special setting.

I suspect most of the nose-thumbing of Elder McConkie and his publications is due to "great and spacious building" mentality in the church. A few people begin to criticize and mock and all of a sudden you have a large building full doing it, 90% of whom know nothing of why they are doing it. It just seems like the popular notion at the time. Then again, he never was one to pull a punch, an attribute that will always have opposition, even between friends.

I don't claim his books to be error-free or pure and complete doctrine. But I do honor him for the man he was and the great things he accomplished as an apostle, as a father, and as a man.

[HiJolly]

We are asked to list errors or false doctrines; a *partial* list is therefore provided; suddenly we all hate the Church AND Elder McConkie. Sheesh.

The book "Mormon Doctrine" was falsly titled, and its contents is an excellent attempt to describe a certain man's opinions regarding what Mormons believe. Nothing more. The book itself is an example of "poop brownies", thereby disproving that theory.

True Mormons find truth wherever it is to be found. That's the truth.

HiJolly

[Mormon Dude]

This is an excerpt from the book: The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, published by Deseret Book. The following quote is from Merdian Magazine

I'm guess this article was published on Merdian Magazine's Website, but how long ago? I had never heard any of this.

[O-Brother]

Mormons were/are not ready to accept BRM's opinions as "doctrines" or doctrines as his opinions. Or, sadly, BRM didn't understand the Gospel.

He was not the most politically correct General Authority but neither was John The Baptist or Abinadi.

In today's world he would likely be ex-communicated as an Apostate. At least he corrected himself in time. Only those who knew him or talked to him about doctrine and teachings know whether his change of tone and teachings was voluntary or involuntary.

We tend not to accept doctrine and teaching that don't go well with our times and our own views on things. Let's say that a modern 70 or an Apostle declared something totally unacceptable for our times. What would happen?

How can past leaders be condemned? They were called of God, no? Makes me wonder about the tens of thousands of people who supported them in their lifetime. Were they supporting someone who was teaching false doctrine? Is a truth that was taught 50 years ago less of a truth today? A truth that was taught in Brigham Young's time less of a truth today? If so, then they weren't teaching any truth at all only lies and all those who believed those truths believed a lies.

I find this very disturbing. By the same logic, how do you know what's being taught today is not going to be discared 60 years from now?

Either truth is eternal and revelations are true or they are conditional upon the times. If they are conditional upon the times, then I wonder who reliable they are for the long-term. Jesus says that Heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words. If His words were given to his annointed 100 years ago, do they simply "pass away" with circumstances?

Care to explain?

[cinepro]

We tend not to accept doctrine and teaching that don't go well with our times and our own views on things. Let's say that a modern 70 or an Apostle declared something totally unacceptable for our times. What would happen?

Great post, OB. The answer to that particular question is "The people who disagree with them would say they were speaking 'as a man".

[HiJolly]

We tend not to accept doctrine and teaching that don't go well with our times and our own views on things. Let's say that a modern 70 or an Apostle declared something totally unacceptable for our times. What would happen?

You mean like God the Father had physical sex with Mary the betrothed of Joseph, thereby conceiving Jesus? That was taught from the pulpit in the tabernacle, many times. What would happen? We would ignore it and hope no one looked it up in the Journal of Discourses, that's what. Same thing for the "Curse of Cain" teachings.

How can past leaders be condemned? They were called of God, no? Makes me wonder about the tens of thousands of people who supported them in their lifetime. Were they supporting someone who was teaching false doctrine? Is a truth that was taught 50 years ago less of a truth today? A truth that was taught in Brigham Young's time less of a truth today? If so, then they weren't teaching any truth at all only lies and all those who believed those truths believed a lies.

I agree that past leaders should not be condemned. As for the rest, I disagree. "a lies"? Anyway, your wondering is disturbing, that's for sure. I sense that you must be troubled. :-O

I find this very disturbing. By the same logic, how do you know what's being taught today is not going to be discared 60 years from now?

We don't, of course.

Either truth is eternal and revelations are true or they are conditional upon the times. If they are conditional upon the times, then I wonder who reliable they are for the long-term. Jesus says that Heaven and earth shall pass away but not His words. If His words were given to his annointed 100 years ago, do they simply "pass away" with circumstances?

Care to explain?

Some are, some aren't. People make mistakes, as you well know. All people, even prophets. That's your explanation. I'll bet you're not satisfied. Now *I'm* troubled!

HiJolly

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] and I just do not like how some people try to discredit an apostle of God [...]

[jwhitlock]

We are asked to list errors or false doctrines; a *partial* list is therefore provided; suddenly we all hate the Church AND Elder McConkie. Sheesh.

The book "Mormon Doctrine" was falsly titled, and its contents is an excellent attempt to describe a certain man's opinions regarding what Mormons believe. Nothing more. The book itself is an example of "poop brownies", thereby disproving that theory.

True Mormons find truth wherever it is to be found. That's the truth.

HiJolly

Elder McConkie and his son, Joseph, had / have some very interesting personalities. Very black and white, very authoritative, and very little expression of opinion as such; it's all Fact. While errors can be found in Mormon Doctrine, the entire tone of the 1966 edition - even after being "softened" - still reflects those personalities. For some reason, I'm less inclined to be patient with a person who expresses himself over and over as authoritative, and constantly has to be revising himself when the inevitable errors are brought to light.

In some respects, when I compare Elder McConkie to some of the other apostles who I greatly admire, there is a marked difference in humility, careful choice of words, loving attitude, empathy, approachability, and even depth of thought in some areas. For instance, many hold Elder McConkie as very scholarly, yet others apostles have been far more profound in their teachings, in far more humble ways.

These are just some meandering thoughts, but at least for me, Mormon Doctrine is tainted by the tone and the presentation. When I was at BYU, I heard more than one religion professor comment about no one else having the (insert choice of word here) to entitle their own work as "Mormon Doctrine". Because of that authoritative tone, I tend to be less tolerant of the errors evident in the book, which - for me, at least - makes it a non-primary source of information about the gospel.

I took a class from his son, and had a whole semester to tune my perspective on authoritative personalities. I don't despise Elder McConkie, and I respect him as an apostle, and much of what he had to say was of value, but (there's that word!) I don't find the Christlike essence of the restored gospel much in evidence in its pages.

On the other hand, the Church has benefited over the years from a wide range of personality and perspective difference between its leaders. Over time, the balance of it all becomes evident, and perhaps Elder McConkie played a role in that. Checks and balances are always needed in any organization; while Elder McConkies definition and tone of LDS doctrine certainly doesn't capture the essence of the restoration, it has perhaps provided a check for other influence pulling too far in other directions.

[John Larsen]

For some reason, I'm less inclined to be patient with a person who expresses himself over and over as authoritative, and constantly has to be revising himself when the inevitable errors are brought to light.

Brilliant. And in a sentence you sum up a large portion of my objection to the Church in general.

[jwhitlock]

Brilliant. And in a sentence you sum up a large portion of my objection to the Church in general.

Yet, Elder McConkie is not the real face of Mormonism. There are many other leaders (and members) of the Church that I would consider - for their times and places - to be representative of the real essence of the restored gospel and the Church.

Interesting, though. Do you really consider Elder McConkie and his writings as capturing the flavor of the Church?

I certainly don't.

[John Larsen]

Yet, Elder McConkie is not the real face of Mormonism. There are many other leaders (and members) of the Church that I would consider - for their times and places - to be representative of the real essence of the restored gospel and the Church.

Interesting, though. Do you really consider Elder McConkie and his writings as capturing the flavor of the Church?

I certainly don't.

Which part do you think he got wrong? It certainly wasn't the racism, the anti-Catholicism, or the belief that Indians were Jews.

[jwhitlock]

Which part do you think he got wrong? It certainly wasn't the racism, the anti-Catholicism, or the belief that Indians were Jews.

Now you're just trying to kick the beehive.

Any serious comments?

[caudicus]

No 2 LDS will agree as to what constitutes doctrine. A lot of people on this board are great at saying "that is not doctrine," but I have never heard anyone unequivocally declare any specific point as church doctrine. Everything is up to the interpretation of each individual, and the Holy Ghost is likely to give 2 people very different interpretations.

Anyone care to take a stab at describing what IS LDS doctrine?

[sethpayne]

No 2 LDS will agree as to what constitutes doctrine. A lot of people on this board are great at saying "that is not doctrine," but I have never heard anyone unequivocally declare any specific point as church doctrine. Everything is up to the interpretation of each individual, and the Holy Ghost is likely to give 2 people very different interpretations.

Anyone care to take a stab at describing what IS LDS doctrine?

BCSpace has the key. I'm sure he'll share.

[SearchDog]

On another thread it was suggested that there were over 1000 doctrinal errors contained in the original edition of Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I was going to post this rebuttal there but decided not to de-rail that thread but instead post it here. This is an excerpt from the book: The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, published by Deseret Book. The following quote is from Merdian Magazine:I provided here most of the entire quote but I particularly point attention to the last bolded part, so it seems at least his son Joseph Fielding McConkie states that there was nothing that was not doctrinal, only in the tone and in the delivery. Now one might question Elder McConkie's son, but I think he is in a good position to state his father's case.

Thank you so much for collecting this and presenting it.

[Scottie]

Lightbearer, it really weakens your position as an apologist when you consistently call valid criticisms "hateful" and that we are "attacking God's church and leaders"... even when you start a thread asking for criticism.

I would say the same thing about anti's who consistently call JS a pedophile. It weakens their credibility because they are obviously too emotionally charged to objectively weigh the evidence.

It would appear that the evidence supports that there were quite a few errors in the book. That doesn't make anybody here hateful, or attacking the church or BRM.

[John Larsen]

Now you're just trying to kick the beehive.

Any serious comments?

My point is that Bruce R's descriptions of Mormon Doctrine match the generally held beliefs of most Mormons. I contend that his descriptions of even his "offensive" doctrines are widely held in the pews.

[Lightbearer]

I am gratified that my OP has created no small stir and division here on the board. I find it amusing and somewhat sad at some of the responses I received and find it ironic to be buffeted by so many who are supposedly here to defend the Church and it's leaders. The apostates and Anti-Mormons I can understand, but those who profess to be faithful LDS to attack me and one of the Lord's servants is what I find difficult to understand. Cruel and unfounded statements like I want to worship his words or like responses I find troubling. I almost wish I lived in another time and place, where desensitization and acceptance of worldly teachings had not infiltrated the Church to the point that the leaders must coddle and speak "warm fuzzies" to avoid offending the world. I guess I am showing my age, I come from an era where I had to hold "black & white" values to survive with a testimony of the Gospel. I was always uncomfortable with the "shades of gray" nonsense that came out of the culture of the 60's... Perhaps Elder McConkie's "tone" is a "backlash" product of the times he lived in as well. Today's politically correct ideas of "relative truth" in which the notion seems to prevail that "all churches are true... as long as they teach Christ" (that was from the 70's version of the First Vision film we as Missionaries showed to countless people) is not only foreign to me but repugnant, I suppose that is why with only a few exceptions I do not really feel welcome on this board, but no matter I do not really consider myself an "apologist" I try to defend the Church, the truth, and the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many today would say that Nephi was to harsh? His brothers sure did. As for those who self-righteously try to say that I am assailing a Prophet or the other apostles who criticized Elder McConkie I would ask, did not those same prophets and apostles and the members of the Church at the time sustain Elder McConkie's calling to the quorum of the Twelve? Did he get punished for revising and republishing the 2nd edition? Or did Spencer W. Kimball assist him in revising and republishing the book? I am not saying the 2nd edition is inerrant but what I am saying is that it is just as reliable as any other non-canonical book by any other general authority that is not "officially published" by the church. The fact that some of the teachings are quoted in Official Church publications does tend to say that the book, while not 100% perfect is a credible source. I find it interesting that the same ones who decry his books are quick to quote from other books that general authorities had nothing to do with and some apostates even wrote. Ironically I do not often use Mormon Doctrine as a reference I prefer his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary and other writings. But it seems because of the Mormon Doctrine fiasco everything else he ever wrote automatically becomes suspect... I hear people say "Oh thats "McConkie Doctrine" like they have license to disparage this apostle because of the controversy of an earlier work that was corrected and re-published with the permission of the Church authorities. As for the Meridian Magazine link to my original source it is here: Meridian Magazine: BRM Story

As for those who are so offended at my defense of Elder McConkie and his writings I say, go on believing whatever you want, it does not really matter... oh and if you consider saying this

"I doubt that even BRM would want to belong to your church of the inerrant BRM that you're trying to set up."

is a valid criticism judge ye. All I am trying to do is make another point of view that is not so popular on this board. So if the Mods are so inclined they can close this thread... I think I have said all I need to on this subject.

[John Larsen]

As for those who are so offended at my defense of Elder McConkie and his writings I say, go on believing whatever you want, it does not really matter... oh and if you consider saying this is a valid criticism judge ye. All I am trying to do is make another point of view that is not so popular on this board. So if the Mods are so inclined they can close this thread... I think I have said all I need to on this subject.

Frankly, the only person in this discussion that seems offended is you.

[SlackTime]

I am gratified that my OP has created no small stir and division here on the board. I find it amusing and somewhat sad at some of the responses I received and find it ironic to be buffeted by so many who are supposedly here to defend the Church and it's leaders. The apostates and Anti-Mormons I can understand, but those who profess to be faithful LDS to attack me and one of the Lord's servants is what I find difficult to understand. Cruel and unfounded statements like I want to worship his words or like responses I find troubling. I almost wish I lived in another time and place, where desensitization and acceptance of worldly teachings had not infiltrated the Church to the point that the leaders must coddle and speak "warm fuzzies" to avoid offending the world. I guess I am showing my age, I come from an era where I had to hold "black & white" values to survive with a testimony of the Gospel. I was always uncomfortable with the "shades of gray" nonsense that came out of the culture of the 60's... Perhaps Elder McConkie's "tone" is a "backlash" product of the times he lived in as well. Today's politically correct ideas of "relative truth" in which the notion seems to prevail that "all churches are true... as long as they teach Christ" (that was from the 70's version of the First Vision film we as Missionaries showed to countless people) is not only foreign to me but repugnant, I suppose that is why with only a few exceptions I do not really feel welcome on this board, but no matter I do not really consider myself an "apologist" I try to defend the Church, the truth, and the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many today would say that Nephi was to harsh? His brothers sure did. As for those who self-righteously try to say that I am assailing a Prophet or the other apostles who criticized Elder McConkie I would ask, did not those same prophets and apostles and the members of the Church at the time sustain Elder McConkie's calling to the quorum of the Twelve? Did he get punished for revising and republishing the 2nd edition? Or did Spencer W. Kimball assist him in revising and republishing the book? I am not saying the 2nd edition is inerrant but what I am saying is that it is just as reliable as any other non-canonical book by any other general authority that is not "officially published" by the church. The fact that some of the teachings are quoted in Official Church publications does tend to say that the book, while not 100% perfect is a credible source. I find it interesting that the same ones who decry his books are quick to quote from other books that general authorities had nothing to do with and some apostates even wrote. Ironically I do not often use Mormon Doctrine as a reference I prefer his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary and other writings. But it seems because of the Mormon Doctrine fiasco everything else he ever wrote automatically becomes suspect... I hear people say "Oh thats "McConkie Doctrine" like they have license to disparage this apostle because of the controversy of an earlier work that was corrected and re-published with the permission of the Church authorities. As for the Meridian Magazine link to my original source it is here: Meridian Magazine: BRM Story

As for those who are so offended at my defense of Elder McConkie and his writings I say, go on believing whatever you want, it does not really matter... oh and if you consider saying this is a valid criticism judge ye. All I am trying to do is make another point of view that is not so popular on this board. So if the Mods are so inclined they can close this thread... I think I have said all I need to on this subject.

FWIW Lightbearer, I believe that Elder McConkie is/was one of the most knowledgable GAs we've had. His Mormon Doctrine book filled a very needed place and I think that Pres. McKay recognized that, which was why he eventually requested the 2nd printing with the changes made. I would have been happier if he (Elder McConkie) had been commissioned to write the book, or had received such commission before publishing it, and had had it reviewed by the First Presidency before publishing, but he didn't and what's more I believe that he didn't believe he needed to, which says more about the anarchic nature of Church publishing at the time than it does about BRM. Anyway, while there were errors, generally speaking I believe the book did a lot of good in a time when correlation was still a future development.

- SlackTime

[ERayR]

Lightbearer:

I doubt that even BRM would want to belong to your church of the inerrant BRM that you're trying to set up.

I think this is an over the top, disingenuous ad hominem.

[sethpayne]

I am gratified that my OP has created no small stir and division here on the board. I find it amusing and somewhat sad at some of the responses I received and find it ironic to be buffeted by so many who are supposedly here to defend the Church and it's leaders. The apostates and Anti-Mormons I can understand, but those who profess to be faithful LDS to attack me and one of the Lord's servants is what I find difficult to understand. Cruel and unfounded statements like I want to worship his words or like responses I find troubling. I almost wish I lived in another time and place, where desensitization and acceptance of worldly teachings had not infiltrated the Church to the point that the leaders must coddle and speak "warm fuzzies" to avoid offending the world. I guess I am showing my age, I come from an era where I had to hold "black & white" values to survive with a testimony of the Gospel. I was always uncomfortable with the "shades of gray" nonsense that came out of the culture of the 60's... Perhaps Elder McConkie's "tone" is a "backlash" product of the times he lived in as well. Today's politically correct ideas of "relative truth" in which the notion seems to prevail that "all churches are true... as long as they teach Christ" (that was from the 70's version of the First Vision film we as Missionaries showed to countless people) is not only foreign to me but repugnant, I suppose that is why with only a few exceptions I do not really feel welcome on this board, but no matter I do not really consider myself an "apologist" I try to defend the Church, the truth, and the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many today would say that Nephi was to harsh? His brothers sure did. As for those who self-righteously try to say that I am assailing a Prophet or the other apostles who criticized Elder McConkie I would ask, did not those same prophets and apostles and the members of the Church at the time sustain Elder McConkie's calling to the quorum of the Twelve? Did he get punished for revising and republishing the 2nd edition? Or did Spencer W. Kimball assist him in revising and republishing the book? I am not saying the 2nd edition is inerrant but what I am saying is that it is just as reliable as any other non-canonical book by any other general authority that is not "officially published" by the church. The fact that some of the teachings are quoted in Official Church publications does tend to say that the book, while not 100% perfect is a credible source. I find it interesting that the same ones who decry his books are quick to quote from other books that general authorities had nothing to do with and some apostates even wrote. Ironically I do not often use Mormon Doctrine as a reference I prefer his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary and other writings. But it seems because of the Mormon Doctrine fiasco everything else he ever wrote automatically becomes suspect... I hear people say "Oh thats "McConkie Doctrine" like they have license to disparage this apostle because of the controversy of an earlier work that was corrected and re-published with the permission of the Church authorities. As for the Meridian Magazine link to my original source it is here: Meridian Magazine: BRM Story

As for those who are so offended at my defense of Elder McConkie and his writings I say, go on believing whatever you want, it does not really matter... oh and if you consider saying this is a valid criticism judge ye. All I am trying to do is make another point of view that is not so popular on this board. So if the Mods are so inclined they can close this thread... I think I have said all I need to on this subject.

Can you at least admit that you were wrong and that my original claim that over 1000 errors were identified by Mark E. Peterson?

Paradoxically, by defending BRM's book you are throwing DOM, MEP, and MGR under the bus. It seems very odd to me that you will defend BRM to vehemently against criticism laid against him by multiple members of the Q12 and the President of the Church. Funny, that with this attitude, you feel free to call others "apostates."

[ERayR]

I don't hate him or wish to discredit him. I respect and honor him for his many years of faithful service to the church and his efforts to teach the gospel to the world. The man stayed in my home for two nights and I found him to be good-humored and definitely a man of unusual substance. I invited him to stand in as I was ordained an Elder, but he declined due to the fact that he was expecting his ride to the airport any minute and didn't want to disrupt that special setting.

I suspect most of the nose-thumbing of Elder McConkie and his publications is due to "great and spacious building" mentality in the church. A few people begin to criticize and mock and all of a sudden you have a large building full doing it, 90% of whom know nothing of why they are doing it. It just seems like the popular notion at the time. Then again, he never was one to pull a punch, an attribute that will always have opposition, even between friends.

I don't claim his books to be error-free or pure and complete doctrine. But I do honor him for the man he was and the great things he accomplished as an apostle, as a father, and as a man.

Well said 'a_little_taller'. What an honor to have personally met a man of such humility and devotion to God.

While his book has never been cannonized I find much in it of great value and very little to

question.

Those who can do those who can't seem to stand back, point fingers and mock.

Again I appreciated your comments above and thought they were right on.

[ERayR]

Yet, Elder McConkie is not the real face of Mormonism. There are many other leaders (and members) of the Church that I would consider - for their times and places - to be representative of the real essence of the restored gospel and the Church.

Interesting, though. Do you really consider Elder McConkie and his writings as capturing the flavor of the Church?

I certainly don't.

Yes I find Elder McConkie to be the real face of Mormonism see: http://www.mormonhaven.com/lasttalk.htm