Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine

[VideoGameJunkie]

Is this book a must read for Mormons? I read the first version had controversy from the prophet when he released it. Should I track down a copy?

[JAHS]

It was second only to the Standard works back in the day. Anyone had questions, that's where they went. There were some revisions and McConkie admitted some of what he wrote was wrong. But such is the nature of the line upon line method God uses to teach us things. I still use it sometimes, but don't accept it as the final word on a subject.

[Coreyb]

I would say it is at least in the top three most influential Mormon books of the twentieth century. If you are interested in the history of Mormon doctrine and discourse then yes, you should definitely refer to it when studying specific topics, along with other works. If you are just interested in studying current Mormon teaching, no you don't need to read it. I don't think it is regarded as anything more than the well thought out doctrinal opinions of one old apostle by most Mormons today.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Coreyb

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Coreyb said:

I would say it is at least in the top three most influential Mormon books of the twentieth century. If you are interested in the history of Mormon doctrine and discourse then yes, you should definitely refer to it when studying specific topics, along with other works. If you are just interested in studying current Mormon teaching, no you don't need to read it. I don't think it is regarded as anything more than the well thought out doctrinal opinions of one old apostle by most Mormons today.

Fixed it for you!  I am not sure how one would defiantly refer to anything.  Although I am sure there are those who might try it!

VGJ, you would do better to read Encyclopedia of Mormonism, I think.  It's not an official work, although the Church cooperated in its production.  At a million words, it is of far greater breadth than Elder McConkie's work.  And probably more up to date.  Available for free, online, as well!

Edited December 26, 2015 by Stargazer

[VideoGameJunkie]

What I have is called "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism." It's like an encyclopedia and I learned a lot from it. I found it at Barnes N Noble.

[Jeanne]

Quote

I read it and years ago and I liked it.

 

[BCSpace]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Is this book a must read for Mormons? I read the first version had controversy from the prophet when he released it. Should I track down a copy?

The Church was interested in a doctrinal compendium at the time and BRM re-worked it several times, but it never passed muster.  And so it was never published by the Church (the be-all-end-all definition of official LDS doctrine).  BRM was told not to publish it or at least not to publish it with such an ostentatious title, but he did anyway.  Great Apostle with strong opinions on many things like most people, hence one has to look for official Church publication to determine doctrinicity.

Lots of good stuff in it though.  Buyer beware of course.  You will find it quoted in a variety of official doctrinal works and hence those specific quotes are official doctrine.  And one could certainly read it to find out where some LDS get their non doctrinal ideas today; many of the older generation having grown up with the non doctrinal works of BRM and Joseph Fielding Smith and also the erroneous and never taught notion that every word from the mouth, pen, or keyboard of an Apostle or Prophet must be the inspired word of God.

[Stargazer]

Your OP spurred me to having a closer look at the history of the book, and I was surprised to discover that it was first published in 1958!  I had thought it originated much later.  The Wikipedia article on Mormon Doctrine is fairly short and I found it interesting.

I've tended to refer to it with the nickname "McConkie's Doctrine", and though I have a copy (not the infamous First Edition), I virtually never refer to it for anything.  In fact, I might send it out with the recyclables when I get around to pruning my library next month.  This will be known (to me) as the Great Purge.  Not because of MD, though.  I'll just be getting rid of all my dross.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What I have is called "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism." It's like an encyclopedia and I learned a lot from it. I found it at Barnes N Noble.

Oh, wow, I didn't know Complete Idiot's had a book on the Church!  I knew about Mormonism for Dummies, though.  That was disappointing, though, because once it suddenly occurred to me that I wanted to write Mormonism for Dummies, only to discover that someone had beaten me to it.

That's partially why I want to write Why and How to Become a Mormon.  Not just to be informative, but to urge towards investigation directly.  

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

The Church was interested in a doctrinal compendium at the time and BRM re-worked it several times, but it never passed muster.  And so it was never published by the Church (the be-all-end-all definition of official LDS doctrine).  BRM was told not to publish it or at least not to publish it with such an ostentatious title, but he did anyway.  Great Apostle with strong opinions on many things like most people, hence one has to look for official Church publication to determine doctrinicity.

Lots of good stuff in it though.  Buyer beware of course.  You will find it quoted in a variety of official doctrinal works and hence those specific quotes are official doctrine.  And one could certainly read it to find out where some LDS get their non doctrinal ideas today; many of the older generation having grown up with the non doctrinal works of BRM and Joseph Fielding Smith and also the erroneous and never taught notion that every word from the mouth, pen, or keyboard of an Apostle or Prophet must be the inspired word of God.

Or, the equally erroneous and never taught notion that every book published by Deseret Book or found for sale in its store must be the inspired word of God, or that it has the approval of the Church.

[VideoGameJunkie]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, wow, I didn't know Complete Idiot's had a book on the Church!  I knew about Mormonism for Dummies, though.  That was disappointing, though, because once it suddenly occurred to me that I wanted to write Mormonism for Dummies, only to discover that someone had beaten me to it.

That's partially why I want to write Why and How to Become a Mormon.  Not just to be informative, but to urge towards investigation directly.  

Ya, though it has a lot of bad reviews on amazon.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Wasn't Bruce R. McConkie the one who wrote all the chapter headings in the quad of scripture?

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Ya, though it has a lot of bad reviews on amazon.

The first review that popped when I just now looked it up on Amazon is really scathing:

Quote

Initially, I read _The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism_ because I wanted to present an intelligent (hard-core atheistic) non-Mormon friend with a good introduction to and discussion of my religion.

It was a complete dud!

The book was written in a very naive apologetic tone that entirely avoids any topic that might not sound flattering to the faith, and promptly sanitizes the few unavoidable uncomfortable issues (e.g. polygamy). It reads more like a proselyting tract, and its manichaeistic simplism is distracting, and at times offensive, to a more educated and intellectually demanding audience.

Recently, I stumbled upon a more adequate tome.

For more sophisticated readers, I would unequivocally suggest _Mormonism for Dummies_, which is precisely the opposite from _The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Mormonism_. In a very respectful and Mormon-friendly tone, it tackles just about every thorny subject regarding the faith, providing brief incursions in all sides (and arguments) of each controversial point, all the while presenting the faith and the people on a positive light, never allowing any controversy to detract from the aesthetics of the Mormon religious tradition.

For all my interest in the "...for Dummies" book I've never read it.  I probably should read both as preparation for my own book.  If I ever actually write it instead of just talk about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

....................................................................   

VGJ, you would do better to read Encyclopedia of Mormonism, I think.  It's not an official work, although the Church cooperated in its production.  At a million words, it is of far greater breadth than Elder McConkie's work.  And probably more up to date.  Available for free, online, as well!

Actually, the EOM was produced by the Church.  The head of Correlation was the editor (Dan Ludlow), and a committee of apostles oversaw the project from start to finish.  Macmillan merely did the printing of it.  No Church manual was ever more closely controlled.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, the EOM was produced by the Church.  The head of Correlation was the editor (Dan Ludlow), and a committee of apostles oversaw the project from start to finish.  Macmillan merely did the printing of it.  No Church manual was ever more closely controlled.

Indeed?  That isn't what it says in the work itself.  From the Preface remarks by Daniel H. Ludlow (quoted here):

Quote

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statement and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. –Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. lxii.

This topic has induced me to obtain a copy of the Encyclopedia.  I went to Amazon and bought used copies of the four volumes (separately rather than as a set, which saved me about $100).  Apparently EoM is no longer in print, which also suggests it is not an Official Publication.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Is this book a must read for Mormons? I read the first version had controversy from the prophet when he released it. Should I track down a copy?

Certainly not a must read for Mormons.  It is one of the least useful compendia of Mormon doctrine available, and has led many Mormons astray.  I never owned a copy, and did not have any use for it.  It went out of print at Deseret in 2010.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Coreyb said:

I would say it is at least in the top three most influential Mormon books of the twentieth century. If you are interested in the history of Mormon doctrine and discourse then yes, you should definitely refer to it when studying specific topics, along with other works. If you are just interested in studying current Mormon teaching, no you don't need to read it. I don't think it is regarded as anything more than the well thought out doctrinal opinions of one old apostle by most Mormons today.

Elder McConkie was not a apostle when he produced it.  He was merely a member of the First Council of Seventy, and did not obtain permission to come out with it.  He was still a Seventy when the second edition came out.  His book came in for a lot of criticism from the Brethren.

[Calm]

SG, be sure and read this.  Not a bad one, but probably needs to be updated:

http://www.amazon.com/Converts-Guide-Mormon-Life-Latter-day/dp/157008520X

[Stargazer]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Elder McConkie was not a apostle when he produced it.  He was merely a member of the First Council of Seventy, and did not obtain permission to come out with it.  He was still a Seventy when the second edition came out.  His book came in for a lot of criticism from the Brethren.

Justifiable criticism.  He also comes in for criticism from me due to the unseemly way he inveigled permission from President McKay to publish a second edition, after he had been told that no second edition should ever see the light of day.  In my opinion, his action bordered on harassment of a by-then less than fully competent elder.

I am glad the book is no longer in print.

[Calm]

BC, do you have more info on the Church looking for a compendium at the time?

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

SG, be sure and read this.  Not a bad one, but probably needs to be updated:

http://www.amazon.com/Converts-Guide-Mormon-Life-Latter-day/dp/157008520X

Oh, cool!  I used to know the co-author Kathryn H. Kidd!  Well, not personally, but we used to converse on the old Mormon channel at AOL!  Back in the day, as it were, not long after she had co-authored a novel, Lovelock, with Orson Scott Card.  Thanks for mentioning it!

By the way, why do you keep your Gender: Not Telling, when everyone knows you are a sister?  

[Calm]

I was a tomboy as a kid.  Very old habits die hard.

[BCSpace]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

BC, do you have more info on the Church looking for a compendium at the time?

I think it would be better to say it piqued their interest because it filled a need, but they were not happy with it's errors and tone.  I don't have specific quotes off hand but I would refer you to:

"Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings" by Dennis Horne

"The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son" by Joseph Fielding McConkie

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Indeed?  That isn't what it says in the work itself.  From the Preface remarks by Daniel H. Ludlow (quoted here):

This topic has induced me to obtain a copy of the Encyclopedia.  I went to Amazon and bought used copies of the four volumes (separately rather than as a set, which saved me about $100).  Apparently EoM is no longer in print, which also suggests it is not an Official Publication.

These are the usual disclaimers.  The content was entirely controlled by the LDS Church (including a commitee of apostles), not Macmillan.  It is no longer in print because it is made available free online by BYU, which is wholly owned and operated by the LDS Church.

More from the Preface, which you left out:

Quote

 

President Jeffrey R. Holland took the query to his Board of Trustees[The Board of Trustees is the Brethren]. They instructed him to proceed. Working closely with Church authorities and Macmillan, President Holland chose an editor in chief and a board of editors. ............................................

In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

 

As I said, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was more closely controlled than the usual manuals produced by the Church, and certain authors were deliberately excluded from participation (Eugene England, for example).  However, since there are some misguided individuals on this board who think that manuals represent the official position of the LDS Church, it needs to be emphasized that this is not true and never has been true.  Manuals are the best efforts of scholars under review by the Brethren.  The reason why Dr. Ludlow had to make the point that the Encyclopedia does not have the force of Scripture is because of those false beliefs of some misguided individuals.  The same applies with even greater force to Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which was never produced by or approved of by the Church, and which was condemned by several of the Brethren for very good reasons.

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These are the usual disclaimers.  The content was entirely controlled by the LDS Church (including a commitee of apostles), not Macmillan.  It is no longer in print because it is made available free online by BYU, which is wholly owned and operated by the LDS Church.

More from the Preface, which you left out:

As I said, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was more closely controlled than the usual manuals produced by the Church, and certain authors were deliberately excluded from participation (Eugene England, for example).  However, since there are some misguided individuals on this board who think that manuals represent the official position of the LDS Church, it needs to be emphasized that this is not true and never has been true.  Manuals are the best efforts of scholars under review by the Brethren.  The reason why Dr. Ludlow had to make the point that the Encyclopedia does not have the force of Scripture is because of those false beliefs of some misguided individuals.  The same applies with even greater force to Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which was never produced by or approved of by the Church, and which was condemned by several of the Brethren for very good reasons.

Thanks for that.  Clarifies things greatly.

By the way, I didn't leave anything out, I just didn't read the entire thing.  I am guilty of reading a quote from it which I found elsewhere and didn't go far enough to get the entire context.  The quote I read seemed to cover the base.