This review of the new book by this Harvard trained lawyer offers insights and commentary that even many Latter-day Saints are not aware of. I would suggest after you read this article, that one might contemplate how this book could have this much character deveopment, not to mention all of the other information contained in the Book of Mormon and be written in only a little over 60 days. Especially by a young man at the age of 20 with less than a 3rd grade education.

http://www.ldsmag.com/books/080304mormon.html

First, he admits that

quote:

---

Mormon wrote so little about himself that I had only the dimmest perception of him as a man.

---

But then goes on to say

quote:

---

I saw that by making careful observations and conclusions I could take the few particulars which Mormon wrote about himself and expand on them. To my delight, I uncovered details about his family life, about his education, about his military skills, and about his approach to writing the Book of Mormon. In addition, discriminating inferences from his writings brought to light some fine points about his character and personality. I learned what kind of man he was, what was important to him, and what gave meaning to his life.

---

Sounds like he made a lot of inferences.

As a Mormon, I don't understand G.Ag's approach. That stuff is fine for Mormons already indoctrinated into our culture, but for others, it is probably of little interest.

Derrida -You should think about it abit. There are many who think they "know" all about the Book of Mormon but what they "know" is based on what they were told or read on some anti-Mormon thread, or even skimmed a few pages. For those who are curious as to how we could believe such book of scripture, I try, when I think the occasion offers itself, to try and help them dig a little deeper and to maybe begin to find out what we already know.

So why don't provide a meaningful executive summary to potentially wet one's appetite.

I get lots of white papers, where the executive summaries causes me to dislike or to take interest in something.

They, "hey, I suggest you read this, kinda sounds like a principal lecturing a student."

I don't know what sort a student you were, but if a teacher demanded I do something, it was usually of little interest.

A good executive summary is a useful loss-leader.

quote:

---

There are many who think they "know" all about the Book of Mormon but what they "know" is based on what they were told or read on some anti-Mormon thread, or even skimmed a few pages.

---

What I know about the LDS Church I've learned from reading the BOM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Journal of Discourses (OK, not the whole thing), "Mormon Doctrine" by Apostle Bruce McConkie, and visiting with LDS missionaries.

Mormon Doctrine is shiz, it's so filled with error, then President McKay was shocked and horrified. If you read that, you know nothing but myth. It is a useless expression of man's opinionated impression, even if high ranking. I have discarded my copy for fear of contaminating my brain. We call it unMormon doctrine.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/7/2008 11:38p).]

I don't understand how something written by an Apostle could be considered so full of error and useless.

He came from the much discredited fundamentalist camp. There were two lines, the postmodernist, antipositivist camps, which ultimately prevail most of the time, and the positivist, fundamentalist camp, to which BRM adhered. He often failed to distinguish between cultural artifacts and doctrine.

The President's Committee found over one thousand errors during the first reading of it, and would have preferred it was never published. He was arrogant and did it of his own accord, not with the blessing of the Church.

quote:

---

The President's Committee found over one thousand errors during the first reading of it, and would have preferred it was never published. He was arrogant and did it of his own accord, not with the blessing of the Church.

---

I have the second edition which, as I understand it, was authorized by President McKay as it contains all the required revisions.

quote:

---

He came from the much discredited fundamentalist camp.

---

Then how does someone from a "discredited camp" become an Apostle?

Derrida (the one who is terrified of being ratted out to his associates) who claims to be a card carrying Mormon, but not a "temple recommend" carrying Mormon, lives in another world. But what can you expect from one who is a "cafeteria" Mormon. It would be nice if Derrida would produce his documentation of President McKay's displeasure. And the "errors" would have been corrected long ago. Elder McConkie was not arrogant and would have followed any counsel given by President McKay!

PS -I know Derrida will have no trouble in listing the 1,000 errors.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/8/2008 11:37a).]

G. Ag., Baka yaro.

The circumstances under which BRM got it published are suspicious. By the time, BRM got it approved, David O. McKay would have preferred it was never published. However, President McKay was ill and in his nineties, so some believe BRM did so in an underhanded manner.

BRM got there because his father in law, a noted fundamentalist, and perhaps the last fundamentalist prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, promoted him purportedly.



[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/8/2008 12:12p).]

quote:

---

However, President McKay was ill and in his nineties, so some believe BRM did so in an underhanded manner.

---

Mormon Doctrine was published in 1958, so President McKay would have been about 85.

And are you disputing that the second edition (1966) was published with President McKay's approval?

The Second Edition is questionable. Reports from his biography suggest it was manipulated by BRM to slide by a very ill man at the time. One thing about President McKay was his distaste for dissension, so at that time in his life, he probably went along with recommendations. After reading the evidence, I believe it was a work that should never have been published, would not have been published but President McKay didn't want to humiliate a new apostle. His biography as much suggests that. It was a very arrogant attempt by one unauthorized and heralded in what General Authorities had to do to get authority to publish.

Derrida -you are truly a very sick man. You spread your own opinions as if they are fact. You can offer noting to substantiate your attempts to assassinate the character of a man whose work you disagree with because it limits your actions. Go ahead and list many of the 1,000 errors you claim was in Elder McConkie's work. President McKay would never have let any General Authority misrepresent the doctrine of the Church. He also had two able counselors to have helped him if he needed any.

I have got you and your character (lack there of) so nailed in my previous post about you!

PS -Just to remind you:

"Derrida (the one who is terrified of being ratted out to his associates) who claims to be a card carrying Mormon, but not a "temple recommend" carrying Mormon, lives in another world. But what can you expect from one who is a "cafeteria" Mormon. It would be nice if Derrida would produce his documentation of President McKay's displeasure. And the "errors" would have been corrected long ago. Elder McConkie was not arrogant and would have followed any counsel given by President McKay!

Name some of the General Authorities who said that Elder McConkie was arrogant. That is so far removed from the character of an Apostle it is really amazing that you would dare to make that accusation!.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/8/2008 5:38p).]

What business of yours is it if Derrida has a recommend or not? You keep bringing that up like it lessens his opinion. I know many temple recommend holders who are not fit to be experts on anything. Have you ever thought that maybe he's not afraid he'll be "ratted out," but just that he doesn't want an internet stalker? Internet safety is your friend.

The only other thing I will say is that being an Apostle does not make you omniscient or perfect.

The fact that a man would take it upon himself to write a book entitled Mormon Doctrine without first inquiring of the Church whether it should be published is in and of itself some evidence of arrogance.

Following your lead, if you read the Illinois Press Publication, David O. McKay, The Rise of Modern Mormonism, taken extensively from the notes of his private secretary.

Page 49 states:

The Controversy over Mormon Doctrine:

A Similar situation occurred when Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, then a member of the First Council of the Seventy (1946-1972) quietly wrote and published an encyclopedic book with the presumptuous tile of Mormon Docrtine. He did not submit it to the REading Committee prior to publishing it, and his father-in-law, whom McConkie quoted voluminously in its pages, later said that he 'did not know anything about it until it was published.' footnote 84.

Page 50, "McKay's initial reaction to the book was not favorable."

"Peterson gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1067 corrections that affected most of the 776 pages of the book." Ibid.

The biograhpy discusses many of the problems with the book in detail the machinations employed to get it published. I could go on, but it is clear to me, you never read any of the books detailing conflicts within the Quorum or dirty little secrets like BRM's machinations and faulty publication.

President McKay did not want the book republished, but it is written on page 52,
"Nonetheless, McConkie audaciously approached McKay six years later and pushed for publication of the book in a revised form, albeit with the same title and general tone. At that point, McKay, age ninety-two and in failing health, did not take the matter up with his counselors or the Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, he said that 'should the book be re-published at this time', McConkie would be responsible for it and 'that it will not be a Church publication.'"

G. Ag, I generally have sources for my knowledge of the Chuch. I choose not to cite them, because this is not a research paper, nor a legal brief. However, just because I omit citations, doesn't mean I don't have them. If I read them a decade or two ago, such as in matters of the BofA, I might forget details, but I can go back.

You stand corrected as usual, as you do not know what you ar talking about and you calumnous remarks about my character should be removed, but you are too little a man to admit mistake.

I have my sources and they have told me that over half of what you say is not true. You also overlook the role of his two counselors. I would tell you my sources but this is not a research paper. I will have the opportunity to visit with Elder Oaks later this evening and I will mention how disturbed you are with the arrogance of Elder McConkie and how he ran rough shod over President McKay.

Every thing I said about you is correct!

"Mormon Doctrine" is a sometimes controversial book which contains some valuable teachings. However, it is not and never has been a work proclaiming official doctrine for the Church. The first edition was in fact repudiated by the First Presidency for significant errors. McConkie was assigned mentors who worked with him in producing subsequent editions. However, the teachings in these subsequent editions continued to evolve. They are Elder McConkie's opinions and to the degree that they correspond with scripture and prophetic declarations, contain truth. However, there is no question that they contain some degree of error and Elder McConkie has admitted as much. "Mormon Doctrine" is not used as part of the missionary curriculum, it is not studied in sunday school and it is not quoted from in General Conference.

For someone looking to understand doctrines of the LDS church rather than invent and twist statements, there are better sources out there. Personally, I have found that the insistence of someone's use of a disputed source as controversial as "Mormon Doctrine" despite knowing the above is a rather good litmus test for the sincerity of these individuals.

Genesisag... as an aside, I find your personal attacks on other posters to be fairly offensive. I appreciate your zeal to spread a message that you see as personally valuable. However, based on my observations, your constant "stirring the pot," arrogant, abrasive tone and penchant for personal attacks on people with whom you disagree appears to have the precise opposite effect. I wish you would reconsider your approach.

G. Ag, if your sources are the McConkie family, of course, you will receive support. Do you have publishable support?

Groove -when he is willing to admit whether he has a temple recommend, or a current Church calling or even where he went to school I will. But, when he explains that he does not wish to disclose anything about himself because he could be "ratted out" to his bishop, I can not come to any other conclusion. There is not a question about my Church membership that I would not be willing to answer on this board. His latest, most interesting statement is that he does not accept the first chapter of the B of A should be most troubling to you. As you know, anybody can come on this board and claim anything about themselves, but that does not make it so.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/8/2008 9:30p).]

quote:

---

I have found that the insistence of someone's use of a disputed source as controversial as "Mormon Doctrine" despite knowing the above is a rather good litmus test for the sincerity of these individuals.

---

Well I, for one, didn't know this book was that controversial. I literally picked it off of the Utah State University library bookshelf at random while trying to learn more about the LDS church. I was drawn to it because I found it to be an easily accessible reference on LDS beliefs for someone who knew almost nothing.

Derrida - I am now, however, very intrigued by this idea that someone who was supposedly a modern-day Apostle could write something so wrong. How would you then view the New Testament letters, since they very similar - explanations of doctrine written by Apostles? How do you now know if they are accurate or not?

We don't.

However, unlike a document written by a man, who was not an apostle in 1958 when he first published his unauthorized version, the letters have gone through many hands. From all Mormon intellectuals or most, it is disregarded as pure rubbish. The harm it does is that people like G. Ag don't recognize it for what it is.

And the letters of Paul, James, and Peter are not as controversial for the most part. The parts about women not praying and other parts, through higher criticism are determined to be unauthentic.

Unfortunately BRM fell under the spell of Joseph Fielding Smith who was even "rebuked" by DOM for writing a work without approval. The fundamentlists follow literalism too stringently. Have you ever read BRM's Seven Deadly Heresies speech? It's one of the most horrible things ever written.

Derrida only knows enough to be dangerous.

All of you should read this link and get the whole story.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/040511mcconkie.html

An excert:

Question: What was all the flap and fuss about Mormon Doctrine, anyway?

Response: The first edition of Mormon Doctrine, released in 1958, caused something of a stir by directly identifying Roman Catholicism as the “great and abominable church” spoken of by Nephi in the Book of Mormon. The authoritative tone of the book was also a concern, with the question being asked, “What right does Bruce McConkie have to speak for the Church?” The book came in for some criticism because of the strong language in which it denounced marginal practices among Latter-day Saints, such as card games in which face cards were used and family reunions that were held on the Sabbath.

Question: Is it true that President David O. McKay banned the book?

Response: In January 1960, President McKay asked Elder McConkie not to have the book reprinted.

Question: How is it, then, that the book was reissued?

Response: On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes.

Question: Is this generally known?

Response: I don’t think so. I don’t know how people would be expected to know this.

Question: Haven’t you heard people say that Bruce McConkie had the book reprinted contrary to the direction of the First Presidency?

Response: Yes, but if they would think about it, that assertion does not make much sense. The publisher was Bookcraft, not Bruce McConkie, and Bookcraft was always very careful to follow the direction of the Brethren. It could also be noted that Mormon Doctrine was reissued in 1966, and its author was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972. It takes a pretty good imagination to suppose that a man who flagrantly ignored the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be called to fill a vacancy in that body.

You will learn that the "errors" were basically one of tone and not content.


[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/8/2008 10:26p).]

I've seen that revisionistic side from the McConkies.

I don't buy it. Can men of even high standing make errors? King David certainly committed no sins. Neither did Judas. The weight of the evidence is against the position of the McConkies who would naturally do anything to defend their father's legacy.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/8/2008 10:56p).]

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/8/2008 11:01p).]

quote:

---

Well I, for one, didn't know this book was that controversial...

---

That is completely fine. And understandable. The only problem I have encountered is that when some of the issues with the book are pointed out, people sometimes insist that we have to accept some of McConkies personal views anyway.

quote:

---

I was drawn to it because I found it to be an easily accessible reference on LDS beliefs for someone who knew almost nothing.

---

I think that is the main problem that some of us have with it -- that it is an accessible source with the title "Mormon Doctrine" when it is not that authoritative. The truth is that there are a lot of good insights in there.

But McConkie was quite the dogmatist, and it shows in a lot of areas where he does not distinguish his personal views from official doctrine.

quote:

---

I am now, however, very intrigued by this idea that someone who was supposedly a modern-day Apostle could write something so wrong.

---

I disagree with Derrida that things were "complete rubbish". Even the "Seven Deadly Heresies" talk is about 80% noncontroversial. The bottom line is that there has to be a balance in evaluating these things and both the fundamentalism and the outright dismissals are just two wrong opposite extremes.

quote:

---

How would you then view the New Testament letters...

---

We know that the Apostles of the New Testament sometimes disputed points of doctrine with one another. It doesn't change their holy calling or the fact that they were imperfect men trying to make the best sense that they could of the divine things with which they had been entrusted.

Groove, I'm not disagreeing that some of it is accurate, but there is so much opinion in it, and McConkie's authoritative style tried to leave no doubt which side was right, and he was so wrong on the Catholic Church, the priesthood, and many other issues.

He treated intellectuals like crap, dismissing England cavalierly in the Seven Deadly Heresies speech and he was dead wrong on evolution. What's worse, because he held the administrative office of apostle, his views, despite his lack of training in scriptural exegesis, give fundies within the Church, like G. Ag, to much leeway. He was trained as a lawyer, but as far as I know did not master any of the Biblical languages and was a non-scientists.

He butchered the dismissal of the Adam-God concept and basically was very anti-intellectual. He had some poignant moments such as his last testimony but overall, he cut a wide swath with his dogmatic style to express his opinions. It is hypothetical but if his father in law had not been Joseph Fielding Smith, I surmise he would never had been a General Authority.

BTW, have you read the Spring Edition of Dialogue on the arguments used by the Arringtons and the anti-positivists in articulating LDS positions on historiograhy?

The contrasts of Duffy's language are interesting and worth the read.

Sorry guys to burst your bubble:

Mormon Doctrine

McConkie was a prolific author who is probably best known for his mini-encyclopedia titled Mormon Doctrine. This 856-page tome, first published in 1958, covered just about everything imaginable that pertained to the LDS faith. It is still an incredible wealth of information for the student of Mormonism, although it has not escaped being a source of controversy.

Author David John Buerger noted in a March 1985 Sunstone article ("Speaking with Authority: The Theological Influence of Bruce McConkie" that the First Presidency expressed concern in 1960 over the book, claiming that it was "full of errors and misstatements" (p.9). To date I have never seen a list of these so-called errors. Rather, it appears that a major concern was the book's sharp language, especially regarding the topic of Roman Catholicism. For instance, on page 108 under the heading of Catholicism, the 1958 edition simply read, "See Church of the Devil." When the book was reprinted in 1966, much of the offensive wording was removed. However as Buerger notes, "over eighty percent of the changes in this second edition involved cosmetic modifications which changed the tone but ultimately not the meaning of the book's content."

Is Mormon Doctrine "full of errors"? Buerger pointed out that there are 607 total citations in Mormon Doctrine and that the person most oft-cited is Mormon founder Joseph Smith (215 times). The second most often quoted person is McConkie's father-in-law, tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith (178 times). Buerger states that "about 15% of the book's cited text came from Joseph F. Smith's Gospel Doctrine; almost 10% came from the Lectures on Faith. Clearly, most Mormons would consider these sources to be authoritative."

PS Again, maybe this bit of logic might also give you pause for thought"

Yes, but if they would think about it, that assertion does not make much sense. The publisher was Bookcraft, not Bruce McConkie, and Bookcraft was always very careful to follow the direction of the Brethren. It could also be noted that Mormon Doctrine was reissued in 1966, and its author was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972. It takes a pretty good imagination to suppose that a man who flagrantly ignored the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be called to fill a vacancy in that body.

Only a fool would believe that any individual who would ignore the direction of the president of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve whold be called to fill a vacancy in that quorum. But you have your agency.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/9/2008 12:40a).]

ibm - so was McConkie right in stating that the Catholic church was the 'great and abominable church' and the 'Church of the Devil'?

I still don't get what you are trying to claim Genesisag. If you are saying that there is doctrine to be gleaned from Elder McConkie's book and that it serves a rightful place within LDS literature then fine. Elder McConkie was a man of powerful intelect and probably one of the most significant LDS thinkers of the 20th century. However, there are some much better-vetted sources for understanding basic tenets of the LDS faith.

The online Encyclopedia of Mormonism (http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/ and the official online "True to the Faith" guide (http://www.lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/trueToThefaith/TrueFaith_000.pdf are a couple of examples.

Furthermore, if you are somehow claiming that it represents official church doctrine and/or does not contain errors then you are demonstrably wrong.

I will point you to one of McConkie's own statements regarding one particular error:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore." Bruce R. McConkie, 1978 (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator’s Symposium, August 17-19, 1978

And again with regard to imperfection in his work on the anciliary portions of the Standard Works (i.e. Bible Dictionary):

"None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only."
The Bible, a Sealed Book" in Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 290

He was obviously humble enough to acknowledge his own limitations, and the preeminence of prophetic revelation. When he was given counsel by his superiors he took the criticism and made adjustments.

RAB, President McKay did NOT believe that as he had great relations with the Catholic Church. The figurative term has never been defined, but some persons were wont to ascribe it to a particular organization instead applying the term more figuratively, less literally. In the prophet's declaration, McConkie was wrong, wrong, wrong.

G. Ag's logic is, "surely inspired men wouldn't call somebody to the office of Apostle if he were so wrong."

Surely, Christ wouldn't call Judas if he could forsee Judas would betray Christ. If a person of high stature could commit such a high offense, then a person of high stature could also commit much lesser offenses. The argument used by Meridian and G. Ag is a logical fallacy.



[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 3/9/2008 8:33a).]

Derrida -There was a need for only one Judas and that was in Christ's mortal existence. None of us heard Judas's eulogy but I suggest you read Elder McConkie's eulogy by the general authorities. Here are a few other salient comments about Elder McConkie:

"Many Mormons who currently wish to distance themselves from McConkie and his teachings ignore both the impact he made on the LDS Church when he was alive and the statements made by colleagues after his death. When he died in 1985 after a long struggle with cancer, church leaders took turns giving his eulogy. An article written on McConkie's life ("Elder Bruce R. McConkie: ‘Preacher of Righteousness," Ensign, June 1985, pp. 15ff) concluded this way: "Because of his life and testimony, our faith has been strengthened and our hope for eternal life is brighter." Several of his colleagues praised him for his personal piety while others took note of his ability to teach and understand LDS doctrine.

Ezra Taft Benson, then a fellow apostle, noted in his remarks that whenever a doctrinal question "came before the First Presidency and the Twelve," it was Bruce McConkie "who was asked to quote the scripture or to comment on the matter. He could quote scripture verbatim and at great length." According to Benson, McConkie "provided the entire Church with an example of gospel scholarship. He could teach the gospel with ease because he first understood the gospel."

Mormon Apostle Boyd Packer spoke of McConkie's uncompromising attitude he had toward his obligation to speak the truth. "It was not granted to Brother McConkie to judge beforehand how his discourses would be received and then to alter them accordingly. Nor could he measure what ought to be said and how it ought to be said by ‘what will people think?'"

Gordon Hinckley, then a member of the First Presidency, was the concluding speaker. In his comments he stated, "I felt like a little puppy trying to keep up with McConkie as he took his long measured steps...So it has been with most of us in keeping up with the stride of his mind in scholarship in the gospel" (Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.418).

Given the high regard these LDS leaders had for McConkie, why do so many members today seem to have such a low respect for this man? In light of the fact that his colleagues did not share this dismal view we can only conclude that modern-day critics of McConkie are the ones who are not in theological step with their church.

Did McConkie misrepresent Mormon teaching? This seems very unlikely considering the above. Mormons who have a reputation for spreading "false doctrine" are not usually quoted favorably in LDS Church manuals. Nor are they praised for their theological prowess by LDS leaders after they die.