Say I have a friend, new to the church, who’s struggling with a particular doctrine, or going through some tough times, the loss of a loved one, etc. Now, he’s really trying to gain a better understanding of the plan of salvation (or atonement, or any other doctrine you pick) Is it really going to be better for him to finish reading Second Kings than it would to read a section from a well chosen, non-canonical book dealing specifically with lds doctrine on the subject?

Personally, I feel that someone can have a verry valid opinion about the Church, and have great insights into things I’ve never imagined even though I’ve read the standard works, and they haven’t.

As far as MD goes, I’m not sure that would ever fall into the category of books I’d recommend to another member (and definitely not to someone outside the church) It has some good stuff in it, but I think I have to fall on the side of “more harm than good.” Part of that is due to the significant errors present in the book, but most has to do with BRM’s authoritative tone (which is also present in his talks) which can be a real challenge for new members… he never seems able to present something as his opinion only (the little disclaimer at the beginning of MD doesn’t compensate for the tone throughout).

Scott: that honest question is a tough one… I’ll have to admit that ya, whether its a conference talk, BYU address, or something else, when I’m having a discussion or reading something, and someon breaks out a quote, sometimes all I hear is, “ya, but Bruce R. McConkie said that… bla bla bla… sure, but he said X… bla bla bla… isn’t there someone more authoritative we could turn to?… bla bla” and I’m left thinking: that was a complete waste of my time.

I guess for me the problem I have is that BRM seemed to lack the ability to conceive of not being correct at the moment. Sure, I might have been wrong on this or that, but now I’m right…

Yes I know, it is in cited in the Old Testament manual as well.

Sure. The GA’s won’t explicitly state that they’re quoting or using Mormon Doctrine, such as “In Mormon Doctrine, we learn…” but the GA’s do cite Mormon Doctrine in their conference talks. I can provide you with many examples but I’ll give you one. Take a look at footnote #18 in Bishop Keith B. McMullin’s October 2008 Conference talk, titled “God Loves and Helps All of His Children.”

#34-”A quote or even many quotes from the book does not equate the entire book to the status of legitimacy. Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis are both quoted in General Conference, but we only accept the quoted portions as being relevant in the context of the message by the brethren.”

Correct. However, there are other indicators of how highly regarded Mormon Doctrine is a quasi-official declaration of LDS Doctrine. Mormon Doctrine continues to be one of the highest selling books in LDS bookstores, the implied Church’s endorsement of the book by letting it continue to be in circulation despite the Prophet’s request that it not be republished, seeing it cited in Church publications and speeches, the book is often used in various settings either at church, at home (personal doctrine study) or in the mission field, or in academic courses. I could go on. All these things strongly show that Mormon Doctrine DOES appear to have near canonical status in the Church.

The reason the Church does not print an official “Mormon Doctrine” is because our Church is a non-creed church. We morph over time. We are open to constant revelation and updates. It is counter-productive to tie us down to set list of beliefs. Sure, we could all come up with some core truths — faith, reprentance, baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Anything outside that scope is a restoration in progress, even to the present day.

It is very easy to jump on the conclusions of the 1st Presidency and 12 that there were countless mistakes and assume that they were mistakes in the sense of being “false.” This is almost certainly the case with some, or even most, of the errors. However, there is an alternative explanation, which I personally believe to be the case with some of the errors: There are truths that are revealed to individuals, and there are truths that are revealed to the entire Church. In the context (and this context is important!) of the 12′s review of MD, they were reviewing the text in the context of it’s (unfortunately) authoritative title and likely reception. They found it wanting; however, their standard was clearly “truth as revealed to the Church” and not simply “truth”. I personally believe that many of the “corrections” were bits of information that may well indeed be true, but which are simply not part of the Church’s revealed doctrine.

Do not take this the wrong way–I am no great defender of MD; I think it’s useful for random Bible Dictionary type stuff, but not much more than that. However, there is great danger (in my mind) in interpreting “Not Doctrine” as “Not True” in every possible instance. The David O. McKay book also emphasizes this danger–if you believe most of what McConkie wrote was “Not True” rather than simply “Not Doctrine”, are you able to (and be honest now!) read a General Conference talk by him without feeling like he might not be reliable? Same goes for Joseph Fielding Smith and his always-exciting books…

A quote or even many quotes from the book does not equate the entire book to the status of legitimacy. Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis are both quoted in General Conference, but we only accept the quoted portions as being relevant in the context of the message by the brethren.

The book should never be used in any lesson in the Church. This is true of all works, except those that have been officially published by the Church and we know have been reviewed by the Church’s correlation committee.

Whether Mormon Doctrine is quoted by a member in sacrament or not does not give the book legitimacy to members who understand how to judge correct doctrine. Every so often some trite phrase seems to go around the church and is quoted in sacrament meeting. One that I remember recently was “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” Actually, the Savior said it would be easy. He said his yoke was easy and his burden was light. A few quotes in MD do not hold up under close scrutiny.

I own a copy of MD, but I don’t think I have even opened it once in the last ten years. I have no need to do it. The lesson materials, the Ensign articles, and the scriptures provide sufficient for what I have needed for talks, lessons, letters and any thing else I have written on basic doctrine.

Thanks for pointing out the information about Elder Kimball. I have nearly all of Elder McConkie’s books in my library. I use them often, especially his last book, “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith”. I feel that he was prepared by the Lord to help the saints in our day to understand the doctrine of the church. But as pointed out, it wasn’t done without with an infallible hand.

Joseph Fielding McConkie claims in his book “Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes.” McConkie writess he has the documents in his fathers papers to support this claim. If this is true then it would appear McConkie had more support for the new edition than just “making an end run around McKay”. It should also be remembered it was Harold B. Lee who called McConkie to be an Apostle at the death of his father-in-law, Smith.

Ray,
One of my Institute teachers once said that the bit about the Catholic Church was removed because it was public relations error. (his emphasis)

I think the statement above, wherever it came from, is useful for answering the question brought up in this post. The men who lead this church are just that–men. They can make mistakes and misjudgments, but the Lord is at the helm and will lead the church on in spite of the fallible nature of men–even His prophets. I don’t think we should put the brethren on pedestals or think them so different from ourselves.

As far a Elder McConkie appearing to do an end run around President McKay–I think this is an example of how things work with the brethren. I would guess that Elder McConkie felt that President McKay was speaking his opinion and not acting in his office as the prophet. I don’t think the GA take every word that is spoken by one another as the word of God to them. This only applies when a decision is made and acted upon by the respective quorums. Only then is it binding.

I am in the more harm than good camp. In my reading, it is not a book of theology, which a book with such a title should be. MD is more or less fascinated by an ideological project, that should not be conflated with Mormon or Christian thought.

“As for the general membership, I think your belief in the accuracy of the book is mostly depended on your age.”

#25 – Yep, Doug. We agree again. Crap!

#26 – That’s the real irony, Joe. I agree with Elder McConkie about the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, and that is what was removed.

I do disagree totally, however, with your description of Pres. McKay as “wishy-washy”. It’s the same general charge I have heard from those who don’t like Pres. Hinckley, and I don’t agree with that application either.

I feel your heartache coming through your words. I am having a difficult time addressing your concerns, because most of these concerns still plague me twenty years later. I can only suggest you contemplate the carpenter from Nazareth.

As for the original post:

Most any book can do some harm. At the same time books are what make us different than the rest of the animal kingdom. The written word can elevate us or tear us down. McConkie’s book has had more influence in the last fifty years than any other book written by a Mormon leader. I personally own four copies, 1st edition 1st printing, 2nd edition 1st printing, 1979 printing that should be called a third edition, and the latest leather printing made from a 50th printing. Many other Mormon books have the potential to be as “harmful” as Mormon Doctrine when it comes to racism. These books are not as easy targets.

Jen seems to suggest many members have blurred the line of canonical when it comes to Mormon Doctrine.

McConkie’s book was all about timing. His father-in-law was President of the Twelve and felt the exact same way. McKay was as wishy washy of a leader as there ever has been, McKay was aged, and McKay never wanted to look publicly bad or have any of the leaders look publicly bad. The rest of the leaders were racists and held similar views as McConkie about people of color. Prince seems to have McKay’s side of the story. Joseph Fielding McConkie presents Bruce McConkie’s side of the story in his book “The Bruce R. McConkie Story”. From both sides it seems clear the real concern was over the Catholic church. If this true then McConkie’s change in 1966 solved the leaders problem.

I’ve just got to ask, if the other apostle’s were so “unanimous” in their disagreement of his work, why would they put him in-charge of doing all that work with the scriptures?

“Nope; the Q12 was (nearly?) unanimous in their displeasure over the publication of MD. Pres. McKay wasn’t speaking only for himself.”

Just my opinion, but it seems like the rest of the quorum would support the prophet whether they actually agreed with him or not. Therefore, stating that the quorum of the twelve backed up the prophet is not surprising to me. The fact that the brethren gave BRM such an important task after would seem to indicate a lot of trust in his ability and his understanding of our doctrine.

Having said that, I agree that many of the controversial subjects in MD are now considered heretical by the brethren. As for the general membership, I think your belief in the accuracy of the book is mostly depended on your age.