Defending Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

[cinepro]

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?

Yes.

No one is arguing that there is no true Mormon Doctrine in "Mormon Doctrine". We all admit that the book contains many teachings that are actual, official, universally accepted Mormon Doctrines.

The problem is with those areas that are not quite so actual, official and universally accepted. The book presents itself as a cover-to-cover reference on "Mormon Doctrine". That is why it is problematic to have statements in there that aren't doctrinal.

It would be if like me publishing a book and calling it an "English Dictionary" with 10,000 words, and finding out that 100 of those words were spelled wrong, and 200 had the wrong definitions.

Defenders of the book might point to the other 9,700 entries and argue that it is still valid to use it as a dictionary (and we should either ignore the incorrect entries, or accept them as correct and change the way we spell or define those words). But the best solution would be to change the title to "10,000 words Spelled and Defined By Cinepro".

Likewise, a simple title change would have made all this a moot point:

"Articles on Gospel Subjects" by Bruce McConkie

"The Gospel According to Bruce McConkie"

"The Everlasting, Eternal Truth" by Bruce R. McConkie (2nd Edition Corrected and Revised)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I find it amazing that almost 25 years after his death he still stirs up such ugly feelings people have for this honorable and just man. But I will do all in my power to justify this servant of God who is often the target of slander and hatred, and correct things that are stated against him. I encourage all to go back and read the quote from the OP and not just parrot the same old "Anti-McConkie" rhetoric that is much too common in the Church.

This is weird. I generally believe that Mormon Doctrine is fine but flawed and overly dogmatic. I disagree with several specific things in the book. I don't have a problem making it known that I feel that way but I don't go out of my way to do it.

At the same time, I am lumped in as perpetrating "slander and hatred." That's silly, Lightbearer, and frankly, bad form.

[O-Brother]

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

OK. So do we accept the last revised edition as Mormon doctrine?

From a biographical description of BRM:

"Elder McConkie's Father-in-law, President Joseph Fielding Smith (himself no slouch as a theologian) is said to have spoken of Elder McConkie that he was the greatest theologian of his generation in the Church"

P.S.: I just looked at some of the material first published in MD and I can see why people would want that book to be forgotten.

Example:

Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 Edition. The fuss is over his views on the African American race. Good grief. No wonder some people don't like the man. So that is what the fuss is all about.

Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527

Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-528, 1979 - 1966 Edition.

I suppose the President Kimball's views on things would not be very welcome today either. OK. I got it. Moving on.

[frankenstein]

OK. So do we accept the last revised edition as Mormon doctrine?

From a biographical description of BRM:

the answer to your question is the same answer to this question:

has the book been canonized as scripture in the LDS Church?

Is the book Officially sanctioned as scripture by the LDS Church?

Is the book Officially sanctioned by the LDS Church?

3 , resounding NO's, law of witness then mandates that the book is not mormon doctrine.

[LifeOnaPlate]

*talking to self

[jwhitlock]

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.

No, I don't think so. I sit in the pews, and don't see it.

[O-Brother]

the answer to your question is the same answer to this question:

has the book been canonized as scripture in the LDS Church?

Is the book Officially sanctioned as scripture by the LDS Church?

Is the book Officially sanctioned by the LDS Church?

3 , resounding NO's, law of witness then mandates that the book is not mormon doctrine.

So why write the book then? If it is unreliable, then what good does it do? Journal Of Discourses? Same thing?

[jwhitlock]

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

We could get into a quote war on this - there's more than enough of what he wrote to do that. However, I'll refer to only one thing in passing: the BYU / George Pace incident. That's well worth studying as another side of Elder McConkie.

[jwhitlock]

The Lord CHOSE those men for a reason, right? To criticize them and their teachings implies that we are demeaning their significance, their divine calling, their importance in LDS history and their role in the Gospel. To say that what they preached is false or personal opinion is equivalent to saying that they were false prophets or false teachers, no?

I doubt that any of the brethren want to be viewed as infallible, which is what you're inferring with your "no criticism" perspective. They're people. They make mistakes. The only individuals that should be put on a pedestal are God the Father and Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the rest of them are in the same boat as we are.

There's a difference between disagreeing with one of the leaders of the Church, and denigrating the position he holds. One can do the first, without doing the latter. As I've noted before, the difference I have with Elder McConkie is the tone and delivery of what he said, not that he made mistakes. Mistakes, acknowledged and corrected, I can live with. An ongoing "black and white, everything I say is fact" attitude becomes very distracting after a while.

Just because a person is a leader in the Church doesn't mean he was the absolute best person for the position. It means he was the one the Lord wanted there, for His own reasons. Leaders of the Church talk about their own personal opinions, and make mistaken statements all the time. They aren't always perfect. The problem with Elder McConkie is that he tended to burn his bridges with his statements. He didn't leave much room for correction. Most Church leaders are far more careful not to do that.

[jwhitlock]

Ironically Elder McConkie has expressed that it did not matter what is said or written by anyone (including his own works) if it did not square with the revelations of God in the Standard Works and the voice of the living Prophet, we could forget them.

Yet another member of the Church on this thread on your side indicated that disagreeing with Elder McConkie was tantamount to criticism of the Lord's annointed and his apostolic position, and that it was never appropriate to do so. One can't have it both ways.

It occurs to me that whenever the leaders of the Church have talked about "criticism" and condemned it, they have talked about criticising "the leaders (plural)". I don't recall them ever expressing that disagreement with an individual leader of the Church was something not to be tolerated.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Consider yourself egged on. I'd like to see that.

[3DOP]

Is it LDS doctrine that the Catholic Church then, is NOT, the Whore of Babylon? I would think the second edition simply removed a belief, offensive to some, that is still permissible. Would I be correct in that? For the record, and I have said this before, I can see how non-Catholics arrive at this conclusion. All it takes is to substitute Catholic Rome for Pagan Rome in your interpretation. It isn't a far-fetched exegesis at all, especially when a lot of you believe the horrible allegations of a history of bloody Catholic butchery.

So I think Elder McConkey has to be excused for saying what makes sense from a non-Catholic perspective. I don't take it that this means that he hated us. You do have to make a choice if you want to interpret the Book of Revelation. Some organization IS/WAS the Whore of Babylon. This man made sense.

Lightbearer,

I have read your impassioned pleas for moderation in regard to a man who coupled courage with good intentions. It just seems very problematic to lump ALL the Christians in with the Catholics and say that they are equally "drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Obviously, I reject the view that the Catholic Church is guilty of the crimes that are often alleged through the Inquisitions, Crusades, and other events. Catholic commentators ordinarily associate the Whore with Pagan Rome, which indeed slew the saints and martyrs of the first three centuries. But how could McConkey, or anybody who is serious about the Scriptures, lump in the Nazarenes, Quakers, Methodists, and Presbyterians with the Catholics in making any allegation of being "drunk with blood"? Who accuses Protestants of sitting on seven hills and being "drunk with the blood of saints"?

I agree with you. It is a desire to please a bishop of Salt Lake and to be friendly neighbors that makes Mormons turn away from the most natural interpretation of the book of Revelation. It even says of the Whore, so that people will more easily come to the right conclusion, that she sits on seven mountains or hills, again pointing directly at Rome.

Like Bruce McConkey, in his first edition, I don't see how to escape the indentification of the Whore with Rome. Pagan Rome. Catholic Rome. Take your choice. I don't have to water down my faith to see that it was Pagan Rome. I admire consistency and integrity and commitment to truth. I think Elder McConkey had it. At least he did in the first edition.

[cinepro]

So why write the book then? If it is unreliable, then what good does it do? Journal Of Discourses? Same thing?

When Joseph Smith explained that "a Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such", he forgot to mention that often a Prophet will think he's acting as such, and only later generations will have the wisdom to discern which was which.

The point being that Elder McConkie no doubt believed his book was very, very reliable, and would be very surprised (or at least disappointed) with many of the comments in this thread (and on this message board in general).

[John Larsen]

When Joseph Smith explained that "a Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such", he forgot to mention that often a Prophet will think he's acting as such, and only later generations will have the wisdom to discern which was which.

The point being that Elder McConkie no doubt believed his book was very, very reliable, and would be very surprised (or at least disappointed) with many of the comments in this thread (and on this message board in general).

Funny how later generations are always more discerning than the prophet. And what is it that makes them so? Revelation? Hardly.

[O-Brother]

When Joseph Smith explained that "a Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such", he forgot to mention that often a Prophet will think he's acting as such, and only later generations will have the wisdom to discern which was which.

The point being that Elder McConkie no doubt believed his book was very, very reliable, and would be very surprised (or at least disappointed) with many of the comments in this thread (and on this message board in general).

I can't imagine him being that uninspired and coming up with so many falsehoods without any interference from the Holy Ghost saying to him: "Bruce, what you're writing is wrong. Don't do it." The HG guided Joseph through his writings, why not BRM?

[ERayR]

Less authoritative would be more accurate.

But that does not invalidate MD. What is written in MD is still just as valid. It's the same info.

[sethpayne]

I can't imagine him being that uninspired and coming up with so many falsehoods without any interference from the Holy Ghost saying to him: "Bruce, what you're writing is wrong. Don't do it." The HG guided Joseph through his writings, why not BRM?

Joseph Smith, at least during his early years as Prophet, was a VERY humble man.

BRM was about as arrogant as you can be.

Perhaps this made a difference.

[O-Brother]

Joseph Smith, at least during his early years as Prophet, was a VERY humble man.

BRM was about as arrogant as you can be.

Perhaps this made a difference.

Beethoven was arrogant but he still composed great music. A person's arrogance doesn't necessary impede his genius. Besides, why would the Lord call an arrogant man to be an Apostle if a character flaw like that was a problem? I looked up the word arrogance and this is what it means:

adjective 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

Is this your definition of BRM, an Apostle of the Lord?

[sethpayne]

Beethoven was arrogant but he still composed great music. A person's arrogance doesn't necessary impede his genius. Besides, why would the Lord call an arrogant man to be an Apostle if a character flaw like that was a problem? I looked up the word arrogance and this is what it means:

adjective 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

Is this your definition of BRM, an Apostle of the Lord?

Indeed,it is.

I'm not too fond of Paul, either. Much for the same reason.

[consiglieri]

I can't imagine him being that uninspired and coming up with so many falsehoods without any interference from the Holy Ghost saying to him: "Bruce, what you're writing is wrong. Don't do it." The HG guided Joseph through his writings, why not BRM?

I should imagine Elder McConkie believed so firmly that what he was writing was doctrine, the Holy Ghost couldn't slip in edge-wise. But Elder McConkie would not likely think the Holy Ghost was important in the endeavor.

Why not?

Honestly, I think Elder McConkie did not perceive himself as writing anything particularly new in Mormon Doctrine.

Rather, he was taking the correlated teachings of Joseph F. Smith, as further correlated and refined by his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, and simply listing it all in handy bite-sized alphabetic categories.

I think Elder McConkie saw himself more as a compiler of what was obviously right, true and accepted doctrine within the Church, rather than an innovator of new concepts and ideas. In this way, he was more like Orson Pratt than Parley P.

As it had taken him so much study from so many sources to amass this correct understanding, Elder McConkie likely thought it helpful to make it available to the general membership in an accessible one-volume format.

I think he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; which may be why publishing a second edition was so tempting, even over remonstrations from the Brethren; not because of any pecuniary motive, but because he was indeed teaching Mormon Doctrine to the Mormons with greater success than anybody before or since.

At least, that's how I see it, though I claim to be no mind-reader.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SlackTime]

Joseph Smith, at least during his early years as Prophet, was a VERY humble man.

BRM was about as arrogant as you can be.

Perhaps this made a difference.

I completely disagree with this. Brother McConkie was a humble man, firm in his faith and a stalwart in his defense of the Gospel. Perhaps what you see as arrogance was his self-confidence that came from absolute trust in the Lord. Like Ammon, perhaps he gloried too much in the strength of his God.

- SlackTime

[O-Brother]

I should imagine Elder McConkie believed so firmly that what he was writing was doctrine, the Holy Ghost couldn't slip in edge-wise. But Elder McConkie would not likely think the Holy Ghost was important in the endeavor.

Why not?

Honestly, I think Elder McConkie did not perceive himself as writing anything particularly new in Mormon Doctrine.

Rather, he was taking the correlated teachings of Joseph F. Smith, as further correlated and refined by his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, and simply listing it all in handy bite-sized alphabetic categories.

I think Elder McConkie saw himself more as a compiler of what was obviously right, true and accepted doctrine within the Church, rather than an innovator of new concepts and ideas. In this way, he was more like Orson Pratt than Parley P.

As it had taken him so much study from so many sources to amass this correct understanding, Elder McConkie likely thought it helpful to make it available to the general membership in an accessible one-volume format.

I think he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; which may be why publishing a second edition was so tempting, even over remonstrations from the Brethren; not because of any pecuniary motive, but because he was indeed teaching Mormon Doctrine to the Mormons with greater success than anybody before or since.

At least, that's how I see it, though I claim to be no mind-reader.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think you've made an interesting assumption about BRM's character and motives. But you mention JFS. So was he also wrong in many of his views and doctrines as well? From what I've observed, it sounds like some of us pick and choose which past leaders we like and agree with and which ones we don't. You'd think that they ALL spoke the Truth since they were representing Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ spoke through his servants. Tens of thousands of people depended on their guidance during their lifetimes. Millions even. Were all those people misguided by incorrect teachings? If those men didn't teach the truth, I know for a fact that members believed them and supported them.

Whatever happened to NOT leading people astray? What do you think of JFS's doctrinal teachings? There is something disturbing about supporting present leaders and yet not supporting past ones whom the Lord had called and chosen to represent Him. I don't get it. Maybe my IQ is not high enough to understand the logic here. Truth is relative now?

[consiglieri]

Whatever happened to NOT leading people astray? What do you think of JFS's doctrinal teachings? There is something disturbing about supporting present leaders and yet not supporting past ones whom the Lord had called and chosen to represent Him. I don't get it. Maybe my IQ is not high enough to understand the logic here. Truth is relative now?

I think this is the problem Mormons get themselves into with their belief in living prophets and apostles.

The strength of that position is it follows the example found throughout the Bible.

The weakness is when Mormon prophets and apostles say things that are later changed by other Mormon prophets and apostles.

At this point, there are a limited set of options:

1. Claim that the earlier Mormon prophets and apostles never actually said the things they said (e.g., they were misquoted, misunderstood or they misspoke); hence there is no contradiction.

2. Claim that the earlier statements are not really in contradiction to current statements, and find some ingenious method of forcing them to harmonize (see Watson's Two-Adam Theory).

3. Claim it makes no difference what past prophets and apostles have said; the only thing that matters is what current prophets and apostles say.

4. Relax your demand for innerrancy in the statements of all Mormon prophets and apostles.

After matriculating my way through the first three, I have finally settled on number four.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. It is this inherent danger of having living prophets and apostles that likely played a major part in doing away with them in the early Christian church, and why they are so abhorrent to Christendom at large even today. The risks are seen as outweighing the benefits.

[O-Brother]

I think this is the problem Mormons get themselves into with their belief in living prophets and apostles.

The strength of that position is it follows the example found throughout the Bible.

The weakness is when Mormon prophets and apostles say things that are later changed by other Mormon prophets and apostles.

At this point, there are a limited set of options:

1. Claim that the earlier Mormon prophets and apostles never actually said the things they said (e.g., they were misquoted, misunderstood or they misspoke); hence there is no contradiction.

2. Claim that the earlier statements are not really in contradiction to current statements, and find some ingenious method of forcing them to harmonize (see Watson's Two-Adam Theory).

3. Claim it makes no difference what past prophets and apostles have said; the only thing that matters is what current prophets and apostles say.

4. Relax your demand for innerrancy in the statements of all Mormon prophets and apostles.

After matriculating my way through the first three, I have finally settled on number four.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. It is this inherent danger of having living prophets and apostles that likely played a major part in doing away with them in the early Christian church, and why they are so abhorrent to Christendom at large even today. The risks are seen as outweighing the benefits.

I think that explains it well. However, if Brigham Young spent 50 years teaching people something that wasn't true and claiming that some things would never change, such as polygamy, then ALL OF THOSE people were given the wrong information, lived their lives on false premises and short-term truths. How many talks did BRM give based on his own MD book? IF people listened to those talks and believed what was taught, again, they were all misled. Not by malice, not by evil intent but by misinformation, half truths and/or misrevelation.

Unless the Lord gives us a truth today and takes it away tomorrow. I find that hard to believe because we base a great part of our lives on scripture, we read them everyday, we teach from them. We quote them. Jesus's teachings have not been superceded since He was physically present on this earth although D&C, for example, reveals NEW truths. It doesn't delete the entire New Testament. It complements it. The same goes for the BOM. If Jesus spoke through Brigham Young, why would His teachings keep changing with each passing generation? It makes no sense. I am under the impression that if Jesus revealed a truth in the 1800's and it would be a truth in 2010.

Take for example the Word Of Wisdom. We don't discard that revelation, right? How many revelations from the 1800's are still valid today? How about the 12 13 Articles Of Faith penned by Joseph Smith? Valid? Despite the fact the we have been throwing the 12th Article of Faith out the window on certain issues, I think the rest of them are still considered a truth to live by, no?

If Jesus knew, for example, that polygamy or the Priesthood issue with lineages would be a problem, then the issue wouldn't have come up to begin with or the Priesthood would have been given to blacks the moment the Church began to baptize and ordain people. Why not? Polygamy wouldn't have started to start begin with if it was wrong. That way, enemies of the Church wouldn't have these things to hold against us every generation. Joseph would have lived to be 85 years old? The Church would grow and prosper and truths taught in each generation would be consistent and valid just like His teachings since over 2,000 years ago.

I'll give this more thought to see if I understand it better than I do now. Is truth relative to each generation?

The other possibility is that the truths revealed are still valid and men changed them to accomodate society, public relations and the government. If that's the case, we've been living in disobedience. Take for example the ban on The Priesthood. We all know about the ban being lifted. However, was the curse itself lifted? If so, where does it say specifically that the curse itself ceased to exist?

Just a thought. I could be totally wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

O-Brother:

I accept Noah as a Prophet. God instructed him to build a boat. I see no reason for me to build a boat. Do you?