Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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?  

I'm sorry to tell you this though you may know, but unfortunately Kathy recently passed away. I liked much of what she wrote.  We had our annual Christmas party this year and I thought of her when I made the punch we served.  She shared the recipe with me years ago from her ward party days. 

I'very tried to post a link to her obituary in this post, but am having trouble doing so.  Sorry. 

[St. Bookmark]

I own a first edition, it took me a long time to find one, I liked going thru it page by page to see the differences.

my feelings on the book are its a good read to help understand a doctrine but it should not be the first or last book one should look for complete source.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

I am finding out that the "line upon line" method includes deleting lines previously given.

[consiglieri]

15 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.

When I joined the Church back in 1978, it seemed every single speaker in sacrament meeting would bring up a copy of Mormon Doctrine and quote from it.

It was so prevalent I began to think of it as the "fifth standard work."

It was right up there with "Especially for Mormons." 

I think one of the reasons Mormon Doctrine was used to much is because not only was it considered authoritative, its alphabetical approach made it super easy for speakers assigned a subject to look it up and have some easy talk prep.

[consiglieri]

14 hours 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.

 

My understanding is that, even though Mormon Doctrine has gone the way of the dodo, much of it lives on in the Bible Dictionary which borrowed heavily from Mormon Doctrine.

The Bible Dictionary being published by the Church, I expect it qualifies even under BCSpace's somewhat narrow view of what constitutes "doctrine."

 

[CV75]

17 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?

I think the Institute classes would be just as useful for getting the basic doctrines, and I'm sure the manuals have references to the more enduring explanations.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I am finding out that the "line upon line" method includes deleting lines previously given.

Some of Elder McConkie's lines did not come from God, but from his own opinion and understanding.

[cinepro]

17 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?

Most of what is in "Mormon Doctrine" is simply a clear, precise, eloquently worded and uncontroversial explanation of common LDS beliefs.  These parts are obviously okay, and there is no problem reading them.

Other parts are just as clear, but are expressing traditionally "orthodox" beliefs which are not universally believed by members of the Church (even if they are universally taught by Church leaders in official Church publications).  And some parts aren't totally up to date on research, and so express eroneous conclusions.

But lastly, some section contain seriously misguided beliefs that were common in the first half of the 20th century, especially about race.  These beliefs are still in the process of being rooted out from the church (mostly, I suspect, as the older generations pass on to their next estate), and to the degree that "Mormon Doctrine" perpetuates these beliefs, it most certainly should not be read or circulated!

If you just want to hit some of the highlights (with examples of these different types of entries), I have this article here you can check out:

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

[consiglieri]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Institute classes would be just as useful for getting the basic doctrines, and I'm sure the manuals have references to the more enduring explanations.

Except for a few well-known outlier teachings, everything in Mormon Doctrine is still taught in current manuals.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Some of Elder McConkie's lines did not come from God, but from his own opinion and understanding.

But how can we peons know the difference?

Is it only by seeing what has changed?

That seems a pretty ad hoc way of figuring things out, for we know not what will yet change.

Just as those Mormons 50-years ago had no idea of what things would change.

Edited December 26, 2015 by consiglieri

[cinepro]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Institute classes would be just as useful for getting the basic doctrines, and I'm sure the manuals have references to the more enduring explanations.

Sadly, even the Institute Manuals have some of the same serious problems as "Mormon Doctrine".  Especially when it comes to evolution.

[consiglieri]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

If you just want to hit some of the highlights (with examples of these different types of entries), I have this article here you can check out:

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

Nice article, Cinepro!

I see you posted it the year before Mormon Doctrine was removed from circulation.

Coincidence?

I think not!

[consiglieri]

Another criticism I have heard is that in post-1978 editions of Mormon Doctrine, even though the part about blacks not being able to receive the priesthood was deleted, the parts about why it was blacks could not have the priesthood were retained.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But how can we peons know the difference?

Is it only by seeing what has changed?

That seems a pretty ad hoc way of figuring things out, for we know not what will yet change.

Just as those Mormons 50-years ago had no idea of what things would change.

When you see one general authority say something that is not backed up by all the other apostles, you can assume that what he says may or may not be the will of God.  Sometimes it's not so important to know the difference, but might just be an interesting opinion on a particular subject. I am willing to allow for individual mistakes by a few church leaders, because I know that they are not perfect and ultimately it will have no effect on my eternal life. God does not take over their brains and cause them to say and do everything perfectly.  It's what we have to work with in this life and so far hasn't done me any damage.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

When you see one general authority say something that is not backed up by all the other apostles, you can assume that what he says may or may not be the will of God.  Sometimes it's not so important to know the difference, but might just be an interesting opinion on a particular subject. I am willing to allow for individual mistakes by a few church leaders, because I know that they are not perfect and ultimately it will have no effect on my eternal life. God does not take over their brains and cause them to say and do everything perfectly.  It's what we have to work with in this life and so far hasn't done me any damage.

If you admit one general authority may make a doctrinal mistake, what is to prevent two general authorities from making a doctrinal mistake?

And if two, why not three?

And if three, why not fifteen?

There is no rational basis to believe that one general authority may teach incorrect doctrine, and that fifteen may not.

I believe we have examples of all fifteen doing just that.

And you only have to go back 37-years to find it . . .

 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If you admit one general authority may make a doctrinal mistake, what is to prevent two general authorities from making a doctrinal mistake?

And if two, why not three?

And if three, why not fifteen?

There is no rational basis to believe that one general authority may teach incorrect doctrine, and that fifteen may not.

I believe we have examples of all fifteen doing just that.

And you only have to go back 37-years to find it . . .

 

You are creating a false dilemma with your any two,  any, three, why not fifteen scenario. Blacks not receiving the priesthood was correct and prudent doctrine at the time it was given. The reasons why are what people didn't agree on. And ultimately it had no effect on anyone's eternal life who deserved it. 

What are your other "examples" where you think all 15 were wrong about? Like i said, it's what we have to work with in this life. I certainly don't know any other religion with a better system or with as many scripturally correct doctrines as the LDS church.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 Blacks not receiving the priesthood was correct and prudent doctrine at the time it was given.

You may want to check out the Church's recent essay on the subject, which maintains the introduction of the practice by Brigham Young was based upon his cultural prejudices; not that it was "correct and prudent doctrine at the time it was given."

Especially because it was never "given."

Rather, it was "taken away."

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

When I joined the Church back in 1978, it seemed every single speaker in sacrament meeting would bring up a copy of Mormon Doctrine and quote from it.

It was so prevalent I began to think of it as the "fifth standard work."

It was right up there with "Especially for Mormons." 

I think one of the reasons Mormon Doctrine was used to much is because not only was it considered authoritative, its alphabetical approach made it super easy for speakers assigned a subject to look it up and have some easy talk prep.

My experience is similar.  It seemed most sacrament talks referenced Mormon Doctrine.  As a missionary in the mid 1970's, Mormon Doctrine was one of the few books beyond the scriptures that was approved for missionary use (in my mission anyway).  Missionaries called it the "stick of Bruce".

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You may want to check out the Church's recent essay on the subject, which maintains the introduction of the practice by Brigham Young was based upon his cultural prejudices; not that it was "correct and prudent doctrine at the time it was given."

Especially because it was never "given."

Rather, it was "taken away."

From the topic article:
"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black servitude in the Territory of Utah."                This is why I believe it was at least prudent doctrine in order for the Church to survive in the secular world.

"After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The article never says that the blacks not having the priesthood was wrong; it only disavows some of the reasons people gave behind its existence.

Do you have any other doctrines where you believe all fifteen were wrong about?

 

[St. Bookmark]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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

Yes, but since the new edition 2013, they were changed a bit 

[consiglieri]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 

Do you have any other doctrines where you believe all fifteen were wrong about?

 

Well, there is the problematic new Handbook policy . . .

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Well, there is the problematic new Handbook policy . . .

I should restate the question. Are there any other "doctrinal mistakes" (as you phrased it)  that have been declared wrong and removed by church leaders?

[rpn]

I think reading "Mormon Doctrine" would help you understand what common thought was through the 1970's.  But you have to know that despite how often the manuals quote from it, it is not all accurate mormon doctrine or even tradition.   It was the way multiple apostles and church presidents saw the gospel.

In the 1980's the church cooperated sectarian press to publish Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  It was expensive when published, now available online, and serves most of the same function that "Mormon Doctrine" served before it, though not in minutia, but on subjects.   If I wanted to spend limited time, I'd spend it there instead of "Mormon Doctrine". 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Most of what is in "Mormon Doctrine" is simply a clear, precise, eloquently worded and uncontroversial explanation of common LDS beliefs.  These parts are obviously okay, and there is no problem reading them.

Other parts are just as clear, but are expressing traditionally "orthodox" beliefs which are not universally believed by members of the Church (even if they are universally taught by Church leaders in official Church publications).  And some parts aren't totally up to date on research, and so express eroneous conclusions.

But lastly, some section contain seriously misguided beliefs that were common in the first half of the 20th century, especially about race.  These beliefs are still in the process of being rooted out from the church (mostly, I suspect, as the older generations pass on to their next estate), and to the degree that "Mormon Doctrine" perpetuates these beliefs, it most certainly should not be read or circulated!

If you just want to hit some of the highlights (with examples of these different types of entries), I have this article here you can check out:

What's Wrong With "Mormon Doctrine"?

Wow ..this just does wonders for the new essays doesn't it?  I grew up with these points of doctrine so this is why I have such a hard time with Mormon truth. These thoughts are from the link you provided.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Jeanne
Adding Thoughts

[Freedom]

If you take Mormon Doctrine for what it is, a scholarly book by one person, then it is of great value. If you take it as a definitive work on mormon doctrine than you will be sadly disappointed. I reference it from time to time and accept that whatever is written is one man's opinion from a narrow point of view. I read it the same way I read writings by Nibley, Sorenson, Millet or Peterson. I read what McConkie has to say, and I compare it to what others argue on the same subject. This is how we come to an understanding. The more point of views you read, the easier it is to either find the truth, or to realize that there may not be a truth. If I want doctrine, I read the scriptures. I find that McConkie often took too literal approach to the scriptures and did not have an understanding of Hebrew poetry.