The Death of McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine

They finally published the story on KUTV:

http://connect2utah.com/news-story?nxd_id=89525

I agreed with President McKay that it should never have been published. Neither should “Man His Origin and Destiny.” Both of these were done without approval and caused trouble for years with outmoded racial and biological dogma.

“…it’s my responsibility to teach and your responsibility to listen”.

This is, of course, a part of McConkie’s apostolic calling.

I agree with GBS. The book has done more harm than any other LDS publication, IMO, and was written without authority while purporting to speak for the church. As converts to the church, it was also a favorite of my parents. So-called doctrines that it contained had countless actual negative impacts to real people (just to name a few):
- relations with the Catholic church were hurt by the unrestrained vitriol pointed at them (“church of Satan,” “whore of all the earth”?).
- further canonization of racist doctrines like Cain & Ham were absolutely being taught as if they were direct from God; I am aware of potential converts who were so unsettled by things members said promoting these same folkloric teachings, that they left & never came back. While BRM later disavowed those statements, they are in print forever. Print may be dead, but we can still look at its corpse on the bookshelf.
- his indictment of face cards (on the grounds of their being Satanic?? – making Mormons look like uneducated kooks!) and including caffeinated soft drinks in the WoW prohibition (at the same time the prophet was a known Coke drinker) are enduring legacies of judgmental attitudes and superiority, causing friction between members, and even causing local leaders to engage in questionable practices like adding questions to the TR interview on the basis that it was in MD.

I say it is long overdue that this book be dropped. I only wish the reasons were more on point: “For tighter correlative control” (isn’t this the same correlation committee that used it as a point of reference forever?) “because of the book’s embarrassing clarity” (“clarity” implies it is accurate, which it is not. The book’s embarrassing all right, but not because it’s clear) “and because of some controversial assertions in the book” (yes, content was made more moderate, but given the fact that there were over 1000 errors found in the original publication, this statement seems insufficient).

I realize the church has a hard time dealing with any overreaching, overconfident leader who says things he (notice I didn’t say ‘or she’) is not authorized to say, and there are more examples of this than BRM. So I acknowledge the difficulty of separating the wheat from the tares within the man. This kind of surgery risks the patient. So I’d like to see a little more embarrassing clarity in disavowing the book, but I’ll take this step for what it is.

I watched the segment, but still am not sure it means that MD is actually going out of print. It does sound like DB won’t be publishing it, but I wonder whether another publishing house would pick it up? It really is funny to hear DB say that the problem is demand. They put out a beautiful blue leather edition for something like $400 last year that sold out almost instantaneously. There clearly is a market for the book, which makes me think it’s just a matter of time before someone else picks it up. I wonder if DB would carry a new edition if someone did?

Thanks for the story. I’m gonna put up a post tomorrow on Mo Doc with some information from booksellers about it. To me it sounds a lot less sinister than people are imagining, but even so, there’s room for a little potential intrigue…stay tuned

I agree with Jared that he provided many great doctrinal insights – but it’s the other stuff everyone else mentioned already that makes me glad that DB no longer will be selling it.

I don’t want members OR non-members reading it – not because it’s all crap (which it isn’t), but because it’s hard for too many people to read a book called “Mormon Doctrine” and realize that it is not, in fact, Mormon Doctrine.

Thanks goodness!

I studied Mormon history and theology for 2 years before joining the LDS Church in 1977. Within weeks I was told that I “just had to read ‘Mormon Doctrine.’” So I borrowed the copy in the Ward library.

I could not believe McConkie’s outright distortions of 19th century Mormon theology; his denials of past teachings (such as The Adam-God doctrine). Worst of all was McConkie’s seeming ignorance and cluelessness regarding religion generally; his inabiility or unwillingess to grasp the implications of basic theological propositions; his seeming inability to see the contradictions in his assertions–such as his denounciation of polytheism on one hand, and his defence of the plurality of Gods on the other.
Later while I was a student at the Y, I thought even less of McConkie when he delivered his ridiculous talk on “The Seven Deadly Heresies”–most of which had been official Church doctrines in times past taught by Brigham Young himself.

McConkie represents that strange point in the mid-to-late 20th century in which official Church theology was still trying to hold on to certain elements of Classical Mormon Theology while embracing Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy, and appearing to be a more mainstream (Protestant-style) Christian denomination.

Now that Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy is the official theology of the LDS Church (The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints–with emphasis on the words “JESUS CHRIST”), the Church wants to get rid of any reminders of Classical Mormon Theology–even the distortion of certain elements that McConkie included in his book.

In short, McConkie’s “Mormon Theology” is not longer the Church’s theology.

More and more I’m of the opinion that the Church’s theology is not really “Mormon” at all.

Unfortunately, I see this as part of a wider trend. Church publications are rapidly becoming homogenized, de-intellectualized, and anonymous (ironic coming from this quarter). Mormon Doctrine might not have been right in certain regards, but we need books like this. We can’t just read Gospel Principles and other manuals over and over. Some of us need some meat to go with the milk.

I remember other church books in my home that now seem disturbing. Ever read, “God Planted a Tree” by Ora Pate Stewart? I just looked at Amazon, and there are actually used copies there for sale. It’s been decades, but I remember very precise explanations as to how the races of the earth were organized from the descendents of Noah, as if the author had quite clear knowledge.

“Please Tell Me” was given to me (and many other LDS children) at my baptism by my Grandmother, and I still have it, but after digging it out and wondering about using it to teach FHE for me children, I’ve had second thoughts after reading the presumptions that I hadn’t considered questionable when I was eight.

Of course, these are nowhere near the comparison to the grandness and scale of MD. Of course the authors of those shorter books were not Apostles. In those pre-internet days, it was fun lie on the floor on a Sunday afternoon and “surf” or flip through and read about whatever topic caught your eye. When thinking that I didn’t agree about the comments on playing cards or hot cocoa, well, it was kinda like comparing it to “Please Tell Me” or “God Planted a Tree”, or other books that were published in the day where perhaps it was more acceptable to mix scholarship with opinion. It was commonly thought in those days that one day, everything would be proven right. It wasn’t until later that the call went out for a pride check and return to the message of the Book of Mormon that the need to rethink assumptions followed.

Here are a few examples of what was cut from the 1958 original MD to the 1966 revised MD:
- extreme anti-Catholicism (e.g. “The doctrines, traditions, practices, and policies of the Catholic Church comprise some of the most wicked of all abominations. Indeed, one of the revealed names of the Great and abominable Church is, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” or this gem: “Two great agencies on earth pattern their courses in accordance with Lucifer’s program of compulsion and seek to deny the inalienable right of agency to men. These are the Roman Catholic Church and the communistic dictatorships”)
- a boatload of black & white anti-evolution statements (e.g. “What a different concept this is of the animal and related kingdoms than that which prevails in the narrow and false evolutionary theories held by apostate peoples!”)
- consistently referring to other sects as “apostate” (this was replaced by “false” in most cases; not sure that was a big upgrade. Here’s another quote: “To a greater or lesser degree, all who belong to the great apostate churches of the day are antichrist” or a special word for the RLDS: “In its apostate bitterness the Re¬organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints . . .” He reserves a special hate for the Athanasian Creed: “Of all the major creeds, the so-called Athanasian is by far the most senseless, unintelligent, and incomprehensible” Another favorite: “It goes without saying that the apostate perversions of sprinkling or pouring, where supposed baptisms are concerned, are an abomination”)
- slight softening of harsh language (e.g. using “hinder” instead of “preclude”)
- the elimination of a diatribe against artificial insemination (“Modern medical science has made it possible for children to be conceived by ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. This practice, sometimes engaged in when a married couple is unable to have children, is morally and religiously wrong and should never be permitted, except in cases where the seed is taken from the husband of the wife involved. To inseminate seed from other then the husband is a form of immorality and indecency akin to adultery, and has been so denominated in some courts of law where gospel standards are not even at issue. Obviously such a practice throws paternity in doubt, scrambles genealogical ties, and lays the basis for discord in the family unit. Instead of turning to such an unnatural course, childless couples should seek to generate sufficient faith so that, the Lord willing, children may be born to them accord¬ing to the normal pattern ordained by Deity. Also many childless couples find their desires of parenthood are satisfied by adopting children”)
- an anti-birth control rant (“It follows that those who practice birth control–the regulation of the number of births in a family by the employment of arti¬ficial means or contraceptives to prevent conception are running counter to the foreordained plan of the almighty. They are in rebellion against God and are guilty of gross wickedness”)
- slight softening of the wording against card-playing (from “To the extent that church members play cards they are in apostasy and rebellion” to “To the extent that church members play cards they are out of harmony with their inspired leaders”)
- a big section that is pro-capital punishment is replaced by the sound of crickets chirping.
- an anti-carnivals diatribe (what did carnies ever do to BRM?)

I’m only at the beginning of the C’s, people. Mostly what is objectionable is hate-filled ranting/harsh word choice and opinion that is not doctrinal.

Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?

Does she not have Internet access? or access to all the church manuals, magazines, and Encyclopedia of Mormonism?
Sometimes I really have little patience for or little charity for the Tanners.

Has anyone else noticed that many of the gospel definitions in the Sunday School manuals, the Bible Dictionary, and on the Church’s website are almost quoted verbatim from Mormon Doctrine? That is kind of eerie.

I don’t want a comprehensive, systematic theology. I want to be able to have my own heterodox perspectives and still know I’m firmly within the scope of “Mormonism”.

#30:

Just because someone is an apostle doesn’t mean they can speak their own opinion. BY was a prophet and talked about the inhabitants of the sun and moon. I disagree with that. Does this mean I am “going on record and slamming a dead prophet”? Do you also disagree and slam BY, or do you look forward to your proselyting mission to the moon someday?

Thomas Jones, please allow the Original Thomas to stand on the shaky ground next to Hawkgrrl.

Mormon Doctrine was an instance of a man taking the Lord’s name in vain — asserting divine sanction for private interpretations. As a Latter-day Saint, it’s my duty to honor and sustain Elder McConkie in the discharge of his calling. In writing Mormon Doctrine,, Elder McConkie was acting ultra vires — beyond the scope of his authority — and is therefore open to the scrutiny appropriate for any other writer of speculative theology.

Actually, Deseret Book does now and will continue to sell Mormon Doctrine as part of its electronic library, GospeLink — a fact that guarantees for the foreseeable future the accuracy of the following assessment:

“The book Mormon Doctrine, written by Bruce R. McConkie, is one of the time-honored classics of Mormon literature. Few [LDS] books can match it in endurance or number of copies sold. Perhaps few books, except the scriptures, can match it in the frequency with which it has been quoted in talks and lessons by those seeking to teach gospel principles.” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Deseret Book, 2003, p.182.)

Bruce R. McConkie’s influence is greatly underestimated, I think, by some who ignore his reputation among those with whom he served as an Apostle. According to Ezra Taft Benson, the First Presidency and Twelve frequently turned to Elder McConkie on matters of doctrine. (Ensign, June 1985, p.16.) Surely, the author of 1000 errors in one book would not have commanded that level of respect. Indeed, nobody found 1000 errors in Mormon Doctrine (click here).

R. Gary – Thanks for weighing in. I have a document comparing the 1958 version with the 1966 version that shows over 300 pages of the book that had changes; I haven’t counted each individual change that was noted. Some of those changes were diction, which would be “double-dinging” for the same error – changing the word “apostate” to “false” certainly increases the count dramatically. And you are correct that BRM was highly influential. I disagree with your assertion that he could not be influential and have 1067 errors in the book, especially if 500 of the “errors” were changing “apostate” to “false” (not much of a change IMO). Even if he only had 100 errors, though, it was presumptuous to publish under that title without sanction.

“It’s not personal; I don’t walk out in protest when the hymn is “I Believe in Christ.””

I do, however, tend to refrain from singing the part “I believe in Christ, my Lord, my God/My feet he plants on gospel sod.”

Sod? Sod??!!?

That rhyme is an abomination — almost as bad as the Canadian and New Zealand accents you need to affect to make the third verse of “Truth Reflects Upon Our Senses” rhyme. (Note to Mrs. Eliza Snow: “Dim” and “beam” don’t rhyme any better than “mote” and “out.”)

on an interesting side note you could possibly fetch up to 525.00 for a 1st edition of this book on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/MORMON-DOCTRINE-BRUCE-R-McCONKIE-SIGNED-FIRST-/330431018934?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item4cef3937b6

Agree with hawkgrrrl and jmb275:

1. Mormon Doctrine has done some real damage. (Although I must secretly confess to having enjoyed reading various passages in it from time to time.)

2. Have nothing against BRM personally. That man put in more effort than just about anyone I can think of to help the LDS people understand “doctrines”. However, he had a hard time distinguishing his opinions from truth and definitely over-reacted.

18, 25 & 26 crack me up. The reason Sandra made the news is because the other side made themselves unavailable. What kind of cheerleaders poke fun at the opposition even when their own team can’t be bothered to show up? The annoying kind.

I agree with jmb275. What is our actual “doctrine”? Is it limited to what is in the canonized standard works? And whose interpretation of the standard works? I think there is a problem of wanting to “have our cake and eat it too”, which leaves people confused. Why are Hinckley’s thoughts on earrings and tattoos raised to near “doctrinal” status by many in the Church, yet Brigham Young’s thoughts on interracial marriage, Adam-God, missionaries on the moon, etc. relegated to a mere man’s opinion and NOT considered “doctrine”? If we accept “doctrine” as being what is in canonized scripture, we don’t really have that much, and very little has been added for decades or longer.

I think this is the fundamental problem with Mormon Doctrine. McConkie held himself up as the torchbearer for the LDS Church. He presented his opinions as doctrine, even as far as including it in the title. Because nature abhors a vacuum and the Church has always been reluctant to actually present it’s policies officially (even going as far as the clampdown on the CHI), many people unfortunately accepted McConkie’s opinions as “doctrine”. Luckily, things have changed over the past few decades.

I want to say ahead of time that what I am about to say is not meant to be offensive so please don’t take it as such. This is another area that I have a hard time with reconciling. After twenty years in the church I still don’t know what is Doctrine Verses what is church folk lore and this is the reason why. The book is another example for the following reasons. One reads it and then takes it to practice because that is what your suppose to do but then no its’ not really what the church wants you to do. What I want to know is what is doctrine? Nobody has ever really said or explained any of it to me that really makes sense. I have a friend who told me that the only real doctrine is or rather are the 12 articles of faith and that there is a broad scope of how we can use and apply the gospel in our lives. That makes sense to me, except when you run into TBM and then they want to beat you over the head with what the gospel is to them and if you don’t believe your not really living the standards.

Aaron — make that some people. It has always been a problem in a lot of contexts (e.g. “it is not meet that I command you in all things” …).

Christ was asked a similar question. He answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind . . . [and] thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself . . .” this is the main doctrine. It seems to me that everything else is meant to guide us as to how to do that. And, as a guide, it can change depending on our position.

Matthew 22:37-40

I suspect the church intended their recent publication, “True to the Faith” to be a replacement for it. And since most people seem to use the Internet in favor of books, it seems appropriate that the content is integrated into lds.org under “Gospel Topics.”

Reading through these comments makes me realize that Mormon Doctrine will never die as part of Mormon Doctrine. so many of the facts pulled from the first edition have worked their way into simple Mormon “fact”, i.e. Catholism beliefs, playing cards, etc.

Hopefully getting away from it may change. I don’t know.

Interesting post though.

“Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.”

Sounds like someone’s been reading Fides et ratio. Good.

I think much of it is that the truth is larger than we can encompass in many areas, so that we can see parts, but not the whole.

So we have a great deal of certainty in some areas families, certainty in eschatology, certainty in the purpose of life but not in others.

Some have trouble encompassing that.

So, a prophet writes a book, and other prophets come along and disagree with it, and eventually the book becomes unpopular and is discontinued. It begs the question: what’s so special about prophets? If a prophet’s opinions and ideas fall out of trend eventually, what’s the use?

kevin 63

apostles wrote (most) of those books, not ‘the prophet’

plus there is a clearly defined process for new ‘prophet’ writings that we heed to as doctrine, as happened with the proclamation on the family,

your comment (with all due respects) proves why there was a problem with brm’s book -people thought that it was a ‘prophet’ writing it since he later was called to the twelve (he first wrote it as a seventy)

Doug G,

“If Bruce R had just used a different title”

In the beginning that was the beauty of it, but in some circles, it became a liability or even a joke.

I think they stopped printing it because everyone in the Church must have at least two copies. I have three including a first edition. I used them a lot years ago, but not so much anymore.

It was useful in its time, but the Church has new leaders that need to sell books and be quoted in talks and lessons. It will return some day as a golden oldie like the Widsoe and Roberts books have recently.

“The Conk” – love it!

Doug: “Yes, it’d be nice for the Church to publish an exhaustive compendium, BUT…we all have access to the same Holy Ghost and each of us has a unique personality and intellect.” I agree with this sentiment. Even BRM who set about squelching dissent talked about the idea that every member of this church was entitled to personal revelation, to “entertain angels” (something like that – I’m too lazy to look it up right now). If you’re in the business of stoking the divinity in humans, ya can’t spoon feed ‘em everything!

“A lot of what influenced Mormon Doctrine were the routine published comments from President Smith in the Improvement Era, a former Church publication which confuses the question of what is doctrinal.”

Without regard to the caveats the church puts out, I feel that if an article, book or pamphlet has been published by the church it better be church doctrine or the church needs to get in to another line of business. If the church doesn’t know what it’s doctrine is, don’t try to teach us anything about doctrine.

Jeff:

What is the doctrine on Polygamy? What is the doctrine on progression from Kingdoms? What is the doctrine on caffeinated drinks? What is the doctrine on evolution? What is the doctrine on race, according to Elder Holland we now (surprisingly) know what it is not, but what is it in the affirmative? What is the doctrine on revelation, and establishing Church doctrine?

I agree that the Church membership has a general sense of culture, but anytime some of these more nuanced facets of interest are asserted on the basis of historical record (quotes from GA’s), the recurring quip is that “well, that was just this persons opinion, but it is not doctrine”, as though there is a compendium to appeal to.

This appears to be the church’s official “compendium” of what is doctrine:
http://www.lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/trueToThefaith/TrueFaith_000.pdf

I think all would do well to read this book by Dennis Horne, the author of the Bruce R. McConkie biography. He also wrote a book called Determining Doctrine. You can check it out at this link http://www.amazon.com/Determining-Doctrine-Reference-Evaluating-Doctrinal/dp/189071822X or google it. It might answer some of the questions that are circulated about more than one statement about how to determining doctrine… hence the title.

“What is the doctrine on Polygamy?” A true principle currently not practiced by the Church except where a man marries a new wife after the old one dies and the new wife is not sealed to anyone else.

The most recent edict on family and marriage makes no mention of polygamy. The rare recent statements from Church leaders (President Hinckley) are very ambiguous, and current Church manuals have manipulated former polygamy teachings so as to appear as though the Church leader was advocating monogamy. I agree that your position is a reasonable tack to take on the matter, given what we have to work with, but I’m frankly and politely not interested in your opinion. I’m interested in the Church doctrine regarding the matter, which is at the very least muttled.

“What is the doctrine on caffeinated drinks?” Only Coffee and tea are prohibited

Correct as per the Doctrine & Covenants. When President Hinckley was asked about caffien drinks, he just responded “isn’t the wonderful”. Again, just more ambiguity – though I would say ambiguity that leans towards favoring the McConkie position. Many members are divided still on this issue, which strikes at your point that most members understand what doctrine is.

“What is the doctrine on progression from Kingdoms?” Don’t know

Joseph Smith made some remarks on an occassion something to the effect that if righteous parents, who are sealed in the temple, remain faithful, they will not lose their wayward children. I believe he said something about those children ultimately returning to their parents. While this quote does not entirely explain itself, it has been the subject of debate regarding progression between Kingdoms, for quite some time. Elder McConkie stated as matter of fact (Seven Deadly Heresies) that idea of progression between Kingdoms is completely false.

What is the doctrine on evolution? The Church has no position on the scientific theory of evolution, but teaches the creation story as written in the scriptures.

Generally true, though again we have more than one Prophetic utterance dismissing this apostate notion of man.

“What is the doctrine on race, according to Elder Holland we now (surprisingly) know what it is not, but what is it in the affirmative?” None that I am aware of.

Again, a subject with a wealth of commentary from Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Not to mention The Book of Mormon. Forget blacks and the Priesthood, what about the Lamanites? President Kimball made some rather embarrassing remarks on this subject I believe.

What is the doctrine on revelation, and establishing Church doctrine? The President and Prophet of the Church is the only man authorized on earth to declare revelation and doctrine for the whole Church. Any canonization must be approved by the First Presdiency, the Council of the Twelve and by the Common Consent of the membership.

I am familiar with the D&C teaches, and generally have no problem with that, except the Church generally doesn’t do this. The Living Christ and the Proclomation to the World would be the only recent examples that I am aware of. But more to the point, we have all of these other issues that we have just discussed which have no official answers, yet are deeply entrenched within our history. Shouldn’t we have some asnwers here that the Church can be held accountable for? Instead we get occassional nuanced expressions from Church leaders on isolated occassions that can be conveniently dissavowed if social tides change.

Cowboy,

Not sure what you are looking for here. I state what I believe to be doctrine and your comeback is that this person or that person said this or that. We are taking about recognized true Doctrine of the Church. Not opinion, advice or other ambiguous statements.

1. Polygamy is still practiced in the Church in the manner I described, so while we do not practice it among the living and in fact, have banned it outright, it remains a true principle just like the law of consecration, which we also do not live but make a covenant to live it.

2. Decaffeinated drinks – Still coffee and tea no matter what anyone else has said.

“When President Hinckley was asked about caffeine drinks, he just responded “isn’t the wonderful”. Again, just more ambiguity – though I would say ambiguity that leans towards favoring the McConkie position. Many members are divided still on this issue, which strikes at your point that most members understand what doctrine is.

I believe President Hinckley said, ” I don’t drink them and I don’t encourage anyone else to drink them.” Not a doctrinal statement.

3. Progression between Kingdoms – I’ve just not studied it that much so I am uninformed to give a reasonable answer. I hope Joseph is right. Tere is more about that phase of our existence that we don’t know than we know.

4. Evolution – Other prophetic utterances? Not sure about that. Other GAs opinions such as JF Smith, McConkie, yes, definitely. But nothing canonized by the church in that regard other than the creation story.

5. Race – “a subject with a wealth of commentary from Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” Commentary, yes, embarrassing in light of today, yes. Doctrinal, NO.

6. Revelation and establishing Doctrine – “The Living Christ and the Proclamation to the World would be the only recent examples that I am aware of.” no new doctrine given in either document as far as I can tell. Certainly not as far reaching as say “The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve” given in Joseph F Smith’s time. But none of those are canonized as specific new doctrine of the Church. Because they contain existing Doctrine.

“Shouldn’t we have some answers here that the Church can be held accountable for?” Like What? Blacks and the Priesthood? I am not following you there.

#82, If you use the full quote, it makes more sense what he is saying:

“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.”

It’s not doctrinal because it is not legal and because the Church stopped the practice. That is the key. We obey the law of the land and were willing to give up the practice to do so.

President Hinckley knew as well as anyone about the situation with Polygamy.

If that the best you can do?

“The church continued polygamy after it was illegal. Was it doctrinal then?”

I know this has no conclusion but, When Joseph F Smith finally put a stop to it officially in 1905, it was no longer a doctrine practiced by the Church.

What do you want me to say?

I interpreted President Hinckley’s remarks on polygamy not being doctrinal in that entering a polygamous sealing is not required to enter the CK. (Thank goodness). Polygamous may exist in the CK, it may have been a commandment for early members of the church, they lived the law as if it would always be the practice for the church on the earth, they may have believed that living it was key for their pathway to the CK, but the doctrine that every man in the dispensation of the fullness of times must have a polygamous sealing to inherit the CK doesn’t exist.

“Hold the phone, there, Sally! I didn’t make any covenant to live it!”

Picky, picky….

Count me with Hawk, standing firmly on “shaky ground”. I have compassion for McConkie, I find him impressive in many regards. But many of his writings were, how shall we say, great and abominable. I feel the same way about the Correlation Department’s continued (if more invisible now) perpetuation of these ideas. But this news story gave me hope. Perhaps the church is moving away from the JFS/McConkie fundamentalism that has dominated church classrooms for decades. I worry though, that the discontinued printing, along with the removal of BRM references from correlated material will actually make his ideas more “official”. It’s like BRM continues to ghost write the manuals, but new generations wont recognize his distincive voice in the lessons. So maybe this is a step towards official endorsement of his views. I worry that this is the removal of an escape hatch for those who don’t embrace neo-orthodoxy. I believe there is much more utility in an approach that acknowledges the wide range of interpretation that has always been a part of Mormonism. In this “age of the internet”, I really hope that we are heading that way.

“Priesthood ban on Blacks being Doctrinal. Please prove it is was a doctrine of the church, certainly a policy and practice, but there is no doctrine to back it up. That is why the problem existed in the first place.”

Perhaps this is just semantics, but the “policy” has never been disavowed as God’s will. Again I would appeal to the Official Declaration:

“Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.”

This declaration does not refer to a correction of policy, or any other consideration that leaves room for anyone to believe that the official position of the Church was that the policy was a mistake. This Official Declaration satisfies all of your conditions, as per the Doctrine & Covenants, to qualify as doctrine. What the document does say is that “…the long-promised day has come…”. Implicit in that injunction is a continued certification of the ban. In other words, the ban is only discontinued as a progression of a divinely intended course. The beginning paragraph quoted here makes that point very clear, that this was all part of Gods Eternal Plan, and that this part of the plan had in fact been revealed to the preceeding Prophets.

Again, taking your position on what constitutes doctrine vs. opinion, anything said beyond this authorized statement, should just be conjecture. If you wish to take a postiion, that is certainly acceptable, but the doctrine is stated above.

“But, the practice of marrying men to new wives for time and all eternity is still practiced, so what does that tell you?”

It tells me that once a persons living spouse dies, they may marry again – like a lot of other people do. I don’t have a hard time accepting that polygamy was once a doctrine of the Church with remaining artifacts. But the obvious attempts at distancing themselves from the practice in it’s conventional form – including it’s extrication from all discourse, sends a conflicting message. The doctrine and covenants still maintains section 132, which would frankly be your better argument, even so in general it is a mixed message at best. I would expect out of a desire to accurately represent the truth about what constitutes a Celestial Marriage, the Brethren would wish to clarify the doctrine in spite of the policy, as they are now doubt aware of the general confusion.

Yeah Jeff,

I’m satisfied to table this disagreement. Church leaders hadn’t been predicting, according to this (apparent) non-canonized declaration, but had been maintaining that this was all part of God’s eternal plan. They either believe and maintain by revelation that God established this policy according to plan, or it is just as I suspected and they don’t really have a clue about what God’s plan is. Doctrine that blows with the wind doesn’t really mean much in and of itself, and say’s about the same for those teach it.

1. Polygamy is still practiced in the Church in the manner I described, so while we do not practice it among the living and in fact, have banned it outright, it remains a true principle just like the law of consecration, which we also do not live but make a covenant to live it.

Jeff, only you would be so bold as to say it this way, as I am certain current Church leaders would not be so willing to state this publicly – with supporting polygamy doctrine. Case and point, they haven’t done it, but what they have done is carefully weed out polygamy from the discourse including the contemporary records.

“I believe President Hinckley said, ” I don’t drink them and I don’t encourage anyone else to drink them.” Not a doctrinal statement.”

Mike Wallace: No alcohol, no tobacco, no coffee, no tea, not even caffeinated soft drinks…

Gordon B. Hinckley: Right.

Mike Wallace: …eat meat sparingly, exercise…

Gordon B. Hinckley: Right.

Mike Wallace: …get plenty of sleep.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Right. It’s wonderful!

The “60 Minutes” program on the LDS Church
Broadcast on CBS TV, April 7, 1996

4. Evolution – Other prophetic utterances? Not sure about that. Other GAs opinions such as JF Smith, McConkie, yes, definitely. But nothing canonized by the church in that regard other than the creation story.

I should note that based on your suggestion that Prophets only declare doctrine under strict circumstances, that Prophets tend to say quite a bit more than what God has authorized them to. What again is the role of Prophets, since the last time something was canonized was 1978, and before that it was section 138? Also, according to you, a good deal of what they express as opinion does more harm than good. This presents a rather faulty link between man and God.

5. Race – “a subject with a wealth of commentary from Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” Commentary, yes, embarrassing in light of today, yes. Doctrinal, NO.

How can you be sure? Afterall as I read the 1978 revelation (we can agree that this canon, correct?), what I get is not a dissavowal of former policy, but rather a fullfilling of Prophecy that eventually persons of all races would be eligible for the Priesthood. In other words, the ban was in fact part of the program, and the 1978 was also just a part of the same program. Implicit in the statement: “Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood” is the idea that God had intended the ban. Now, putting this into context, what we don’t have is an explanation as to “why” the ban was needed in the first place, at least a reason that suits your definition of doctrine. What we have is generational dichotomy, one where Brigham Young and others stated by virtue of scripture and theology a number of “opinions” that today we would rather not remember. On the other side we have Elder Holland, on the basis of reason (not scripture and not theological clarification), that these brethren were wrong. However, if we must consider the possibility that Brigham Young was just stating opinion based on the absence of Canon, we must also accept the possibility that Elder Hollands comments are just as suspect. I think this even more poignant given that Elder Hollands comments are more likely to have been influenced by a desire to maintain positive public relations. So all we have here is opinion, neither yes or no.

“Shouldn’t we have some answers here that the Church can be held accountable for?” Like What? Blacks and the Priesthood? I am not following you there.

For starters, yes.

Strange, you would think that high ranking members of the LDS church would have a solid understanding of the religions doctrines.  The president of the 12 apostles was writing books that not doctrinal by church standards?  This raises a lot of questions to be sure….

YOU CANNOT LIE TO THE PEOPLE ALL DAY, THE TRUTH WI,, BE OUT

Its amazing to me that a book that contains so many incredible insights by one of the greatest scriptorial minds ever,can be denouced as a whole because of a few of his “opinions”.Elder McKonkie never claimed it to be scripture ,he stated it to be used as a reference only.

The LDS Church is trying to change a lot of things like it has in it’s Temple Ceremonies to stay in tact and stop scarring so many away.  Unfortunately via internet and  people more people are informed to it’s real history and hidden beliefs.

Mormon Doctrine may be out of print – but there are used copies of it available on Amazon or any other used book sellers web site. The new bible dictionary made most of what was available in Mormon Doctrine un-necessary, since it contains most of the content from the book, plus much more. Bruce R. McConkie worked for many years creating the new editions of the standard works, his writing can be seen in the dictionary as well as the chapter and verse headings. It’s not so hard to believe the book printing was stopped due to slow sales. It isn’t as if they suddenly “bought up all the old copies, or even removed the already printed copies from the shelves” the printing of  the book was simply stopped. You could continue to buy copies of that final printing from Deseret book - until th copiees were sold out. Much of Elder McConkie’s life was spent spreading his vast knowledge and understanding of ”Mormon Doctrine”, he was blessed as a true scriptorian, and his legacy in the form of the new edition of the LDS scriptures will far out-live me. I believe Mormon Doctrine was no longer being purchased because people had the  information already as a part of the Authourized Scriptures. Also, the church now has information available official web sites making the search for cross-references information on gospel principles simply a Google search away.