Defending Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

[SlackTime]

I find it very interesting that BRM directly contradicts ETB on this very point.

Seems like the Standard Works trump the prophet. Who is right? ETB or BRM?

http://mormonstudies.net/html/mckonkie/mcconkie_england.html

Neither, at least not in the way you imagine. The Spirit trumps both. When the is disharmony between the Prophet and the Standard Works, you would need to be able to rely on the Spirit to know the direction to turn.

Possibility one is that you misunderstood what the prophet taught. I don't think we yet understood what Brigham was trying to teach with what is now called his Adam-God doctrine. But the interpretation generally offered by our critics is wrong and is inconsistent with other speeches Pres. Young made.

Possibility two is that the scripture is poorly or wrongly interpreted or had specific application which is now overturned by the Lord. That is the perogative of the Lord in guiding His Church.

To know which of these possibilities you have in any specific case you must go to the Holy Ghost, or as Nephi said it... "Have you inquired of the Lord?"

- SlackTime

[sethpayne]

I, too, would like to see the list, but I am willing to wager a sawbuck that no such list exists.

Simply put, I am not convinced anybody could intentionally cram over 1,000 errors into a book the size of Mormon Doctrine.

I have read it . . . well, most of it . . . through.

10-errors I could understand, but over 1,000 errors strikes me as hyperbole. That's roughly three errors per page.

And what is an error, and how did Elder Petersen, et al, decide what constituted an error?

It is probably not fair to stand back from our futuristic vantage point and condemn a book solely because we disagree now with what was written then; and it is only more unfair to criticize the author of the book for the same reason.

I think Mormon Doctrine continues to serve a useful function, if only as a snapshot of what was indeed commonly believed in the LDS Church at the time of its publication.

Not every Mormon believed every thing written in it, and unfortunately for Elder McConkie some of those Mormons were senior to him in leadership.

But I agree with Cinepro that the vast majority of Mormons even today would see nothing wrong or controversial about any of the entries in the most recently updated version.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I could accept 1000 as hyperbole -- but could someone check a reference if they have DOM's bio handy? It seems to me that the number stated was very precise... something like 1067 ..... which would make me think that Peterson did compile a pretty hefty, and picky, list.

But -- I could be completely wrong on this. Perhaps Peterson's statement was hyperbole. Without the actual list, we can't know fo sure.

[Doctor Steuss]

I could accept 1000 as hyperbole -- but could someone check a reference if they have DOM's bio handy? It seems to me that the number stated was very precise... something like 1067 ..... which would make me think that Peterson did compile a pretty hefty, and picky, list.

But -- I could be completely wrong on this. Perhaps Peterson's statement was hyperbole. Without the actual list, we can't know fo sure.

[sethpayne]

I could accept 1000 as hyperbole -- but could someone check a reference if they have DOM's bio handy? It seems to me that the number stated was very precise... something like 1067 ..... which would make me think that Peterson did compile a pretty hefty, and picky, list.

But -- I could be completely wrong on this. Perhaps Peterson's statement was hyperbole. Without the actual list, we can't know fo sure.

Ok... found an indirect reference and some very good analysis:

http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2007/03/controversy-over-mormon-doctrine.html

1960: Marion G. Romney's letter to David O. McKay was reviewed (but see the 1959 Romney omission, below) and Mark E. Petersen "gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections." [5] The First Presidency asked Elder McConkie to drop his plans for a Mormon Doctrine second edition. [6]

and

Petersen as Editor

Admittedly, the exact nature of each of Elder Petersen's 1,067 recommended corrections isn't known, but I think it helps to remember his professional career.

Prior to his call to the Quorum of the Twelve, he was employed for many years by the Deseret News as a "copy reader, news editor, managing editor, and editor." [8] He was fully qualified to look at Mormon Doctrine from a professional editor's point of view.

It seems unlikely that someone experienced in looking for spelling and grammar errors would suddenly adopt a different approach on Mormon Doctrine and concentrate only on sections that should be dropped or rewritten. We could ignore Elder Petersen's professional background and speculate that his list included only doctrinal errors.

Or, on the other hand, we could accept the likelihood that his list covered the whole spectrum of editorial corrections. Personally, I think it is ludicrous to assume that he brought a list of 1,067 doctrinal errors to the meeting.

The Inspired Version of the Bible

It is also possible that not all of the doctrinal errors Elder Petersen did bring to the meeting were, in the end, actually doctrinal errors.

Elder McConkie and Elder Petersen are on record with differing viewpoints about the Inspired Version of the Bible. Elder McConkie thought it could "be used with safety" [9] while Elder Petersen thought it was "of questionable value." [10]

Again, we could speculate that Elder Petersen didn't mark for correction any of Mormon Doctrine's references to the Inspired Version. Or we could accept the likelihood that as many as 170 such references were on his list of recommended changes. [11]

Then we could observe that in 1979, just twenty years later, more than 600 "doctrinally significant ... excerpts from the JST (then commonly known as the Inspired Version)" became part of the LDS edition of the Bible after "the First Presidency decided ... early in that decade" to include them. [12]

Clearly, these Inspired Version changes may now be used with safety. In fact, they "are scripture and have the same truth and validity as if they were in the Pearl of Great Price itself." [13]

So, perhaps Consig is right. If so, I'll gladly eat my words.

[Doctor Steuss]

So, perhaps Consig is right.

Might be (he usually is, which makes him quite intollerable at times).

Other than the passage I already quoted, these are the others I can find:

On the same day, Peterson gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections that

[sethpayne]

Might be (he usually is, which makes him quite intollerable at times).

Other than the passage I already quoted, these are the others I can find:

Pg. 50

Pg. 122

In looking for a representation of the "list," for the most part it looks like the main offenders were his comments on Catholisism, and some stuff on "the Negro."

Found some primary sources:

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

10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book - "Mormon Doctrine"

The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Peterson and Marion G.

Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book

"Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce McConkie.

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.

Elder Peterson will prepare an editorial for publication in the

Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church

doctrine. A rough draft will be submitted to us for approval.

<unreadable - in handwriting, but it looks like:>

(see Pres Romney report following) (see also January 5, 1960, also see Jan

27, 1960)

[ERayR]

Might be (he usually is, which makes him quite intollerable at times).

Other than the passage I already quoted, these are the others I can find:

Pg. 50

Pg. 122

In looking for a representation of the "list," for the most part it looks like the main offenders were his comments on Catholisism, and some stuff on "the Negro."

Which would put the corrected edition right back where Lightbearer and a few others of us haad it in the firstplace. A fairly reliable and valuable tool in our personal libraries. Something that could be relied on as a starting point.

[consiglieri]

I could accept 1000 as hyperbole -- but could someone check a reference if they have DOM's bio handy? It seems to me that the number stated was very precise... something like 1067 ..... which would make me think that Peterson did compile a pretty hefty, and picky, list.

My experience has been that specificity lends hyperbole verisimilitude.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

So, perhaps Consig is right. If so, I'll gladly eat my words.

No need to eat anything on my account, unless it is a luscious Christmas fruit cake.

It's just that, when I heard that number, I immediately thought of the very specific number over 3,000 that some folks have nailed as changes in the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri [italian for "intollerable" (sic)]

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

--Consiglieri [italian for "intollerable" (sic)]

So intolerable that one "l" just won't do.

-------------------

As I

[Vance]

I wonder how many of those errors were spelling and punctuation.

Or in other words, how many had nothing to do with doctrine.

[cinepro]

But I agree with Cinepro that the vast majority of Mormons even today would see nothing wrong or controversial about any of the entries in the most recently updated version.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

While "Mormon Doctrine" is probably a good reflection of common, conservative LDS thought in the 1950's and 1960's, I wonder to what degree "Mormon Doctrine" reflects the beliefs of modern LDS, and to what degree it causes modern LDS to perpetuate those older beliefs by its very existence (and tacit acceptance).

And if it's true that the "vast majority" would see nothing wrong with those passages I quoted, then that would mean the enlightened, evolution-believing, local-flood theorizing LDS on this board are such an insignificant minority as to make me wonder what the point is.

They're deluding themselves, and sites like this would only be feeding that delusion and impeding their progress towards getting back on track.

[ERayR]

While "Mormon Doctrine" is probably a good reflection of common, conservative LDS thought in the 1950's and 1960's, I wonder to what degree "Mormon Doctrine" reflects the beliefs of modern LDS, and to what degree it causes modern LDS to perpetuate those older beliefs by its very existence (and tacit acceptance).

And if it's true that the "vast majority" would see nothing wrong with those passages I quoted, then that would mean the enlightened, evolution-believing, local-flood theorizing LDS on this board are such an insignificant minority as to make me wonder what the point is.

They're deluding themselves, and sites like this would only be feeding that delusion and impeding their progress towards getting back on track.

Its not been proven that they are off track.

Edited to add: Being on track would be that they have a testimony of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrafice and the saving ordinances. All else pales into insignificance. Global or local flood does nothing for my salvation, temple ordinances do. Book of Mormon geography is fun to discuss but it doesn't make the testimony of Jesus Christ taught in the pages of the Book of Mormon any more valid.

[cinepro]

Its not been proven that they are off track.

Edited to add: Being on track would be that they have a testimony of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrafice and the saving ordinances. All else pales into insignificance. Global or local flood does nothing for my salvation, temple ordinances do. Book of Mormon geography is fun to discuss but it doesn't make the testimony of Jesus Christ taught in the pages of the Book of Mormon any more valid.

So, they're only wrong about the unimportant things. That's reassuring.

[consiglieri]

So, they're only wrong about the unimportant things. That's reassuring.

To the degree that any general authority is wrong about something, it is by definition unimportant.

Of course, there was that apostle in the late nineteenth century who was excommunicated for teaching that salvation does not come exclusively through Jesus Christ . . .

And going back a bit further, there was that apostle who may have been wrong about turning Jesus in . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jkfrost]

FWIW, all references to Mormon Doctrine have been removed in the new edition of Gospel Principles.

would it be fair to say that the book "Mormon Doctrine"

is referenced to in the books that the new edition of Gospel Principles

quotes from?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that for the most part, the book gives a pretty accurate view of what Mormons believe on the street. Even the edited parts were pretty factual, for that matter.

I don't. I'll bet I could craft a relatively straight-forward "pop quiz" from Mormon Doctrine that the majority of Latter-day Saints would handily flunk.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I suppose we could have dueling sources all day but I did find the following interesting blog: The Controversy over Mormon Doctrine

Anyone can write what they want on a blog or in a book. But other than the Catholic Church and Evolution nobody has yet to site a doctrinal error in Mormon Doctrine.

I'll site one: the error in using the word "doctrine." How does McConkie define the term? Problems, my friend, problems.

[cinepro]

would it be fair to say that the book "Mormon Doctrine"

is referenced to in the books that the new edition of Gospel Principles

quotes from?

Can you even find any? I looked through, and the closest thing I saw were some references to "Doctrines of Salvation" (McConkie's compendum of JFS teachings).

They've done a fantastic job of removing references to non-Church published books.

[cinepro]

To the degree that any general authority is wrong about something, it is by definition unimportant.

--Consiglieri

To be clear, my comment was referring to LDS who believe in things like pre-Adamites and a Local Flood (especially apologists), not GA's.

[ERayR]

Can you even find any? I looked through, and the closest thing I saw were some references to "Doctrines of Salvation" (McConkie's compendum of JFS teachings).

They've done a fantastic job of removing references to non-Church published books.

With the change of references did they change the doctrine taught from earlier edition?

Doctrine is taught in Gospel Essentials manual, Older version cites MD. Newer version citesPresident__. It is the same doctrine.

Question, Is it less valid coming from MD?

[ERayR]

So, they're only wrong about the unimportant things. That's reassuring.

Again Its not been proven that they are off track.

You or I may disagree and from our viewpoint for good reason but I have not seen the evidence that nails these things down either way. So its a little disingenous to state they are wrong.

[O-Brother]

He WAS NOT called to write Mormon Doctrine!!! One of the main concerns from the Q12 was that BRM has overstepped his bounds -- BIG TIME.

As I have stated before, to my knowledge, we don't have Peterson's list -- but we do know that such a list existed, unless we wish to call into question the integrity of DOM.

Are you saying that BRM made a big mistake in writing the book despite his position in the Church? Did he write and publish the book in secret without any oversight?

I don't buy that. A book talking about Mormon doctrine published without anyone else in the First Presidency reading it before it went to press? Is that what happened?

[David T]

With the change of references did they change the doctrine taught from earlier edition?

Doctrine is taught in Gospel Essentials manual, Older version cites MD. Newer version citesPresident__. It is the same doctrine.

Question, Is it less valid coming from MD?

Less authoritative would be more accurate.

[sethpayne]

Are you saying that BRM made a big mistake in writing the book despite his position in the Church? Did he write and publish the book in secret without any oversight?

I don't buy that. A book talking about Mormon doctrine published without anyone else in the First Presidency reading it before it went to press? Is that what happened?

Yes. With the first edition this is EXACTLY what happened. Check out some of the sources I linked to earlier in the thread.