Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine"

[Megatron]

Anyone who or ever was a member of the LDS church is either familar with Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” at the very least and probably owns a copy of the book. This is the book that always came out in seminary, Gospel Doctrine, Priesthood Quorum meetings, institute classes, etc. to “strengthen” a lesson, however, the minute that this book becomes a potential bone of contention to outsiders, they quickly dismiss McConkie and the book as merely containing “his opinions” (Mormons do the same with B. Young and the Journal of Discourses, too).

As an ex-Mormon, this book - and many like these - were the supposed “truths of the restoration” that you just didn’t talk about with your non-members friends. (Just like the heavenly mother doctrine, polygamy, etc.).

My question is this: What purpose do books like “Mormon Doctrine” serve, then, if they are not authoritative and/or binding in any way? If they are to regarded as mere opinions, this doesn’t say much for “modern day revelation”. Although the standard retort from Salt Lake City is that the 4 standard words (namely, the Bible, BoM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price) stand as authoritative doctrinal standards, this is clearly not the case, for the scriptures, which have been interpreted in by someone in the LDS church for their spiritual content.

 

[Mom_of_5]

I read McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” cover to cover some years ago when the home teachers were coming every month to try to get my husband back to be an active LDS. When I brought up certain topics to them, they would dismiss McConkie as you say, as only “his opinion”. The last visit with the home teachers I asked why did the Desert Book Store keep such a huge supply of these “fictional” books on their shelves if it was not what LDS believe. They could not answer me. (Or would not.) It is so sad that so many people have been caught up in this fictional religion and most do not really know what it is all about. A religion that changes continually is very difficult to defend. As my husband has said, he was only taught what they wanted him to know and then changed the story fom time to time. He was told that Joseph Smith had only one wife, Emma, and only after he became inactive, did he find out about the other wives in Smith’s life. I realize this is not answering your question, but when something is not true, the untruth compounds until the whole story of deception unravels.

Love and peace,
Mom of 5

 

[Megatron]

I read McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” cover to cover some years ago when the home teachers were coming every month to try to get my husband back to be an active LDS. When I brought up certain topics to them, they would dismiss McConkie as you say, as only “his opinion”. The last visit with the home teachers I asked why did the Desert Book Store keep such a huge supply of these “fictional” books on their shelves if it was not what LDS believe. They could not answer me. (Or would not.) It is so sad that so many people have been caught up in this fictional religion and most do not really know what it is all about. A religion that changes continually is very difficult to defend. As my husband has said, he was only taught what they wanted him to know and then changed the story fom time to time. He was told that Joseph Smith had only one wife, Emma, and only after he became inactive, did he find out about the other wives in Smith’s life. I realize this is not answering your question, but when something is not true, the untruth compounds until the whole story of deception unravels.

Love and peace,
Mom of 5

Mom of 5,

Thanks for your comments. Your point on why Deseret Book Inc. continues to sell so many copies of these opinionated books is puzzling to me. It’s even more puzzling when you walk into a director’s office of your local LDS Institute of Religion and find a copy of the good ole’ “stick of Bruce R.”

Defining “official” Mormon Doctrine is as daunting a task as trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

As for Joseph Smith and the wives, it’s quite shocking to discover that some of these wives were already married to other man and some of them (in fact, at least 3 of them) were at or under the age of 16. Many a Mopologist have insisted that we not judge Joe Smith by the standards of our day in this matter. Fair enough, because if that’s the case most would agree that the moral code on such issues of polygamy and child molestation were STRICTER than today. Again, we have to deal with these paradoxical messages from Temple Square in SLC. On the one hand, morality is slipping into the abyss with each passing generation, yet we are to judge Joe Smith’s actions in the 19th century along a different scale?! I just don’t get it.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Here’s your basic riposte when an LDS say’s that Mormon Doctrine is just McConkie’s opinion

1. McConkie was promoted to the position of LDS apostle AFTER the book was published and re-published.
2. Not only has the volume been re-published multiple times, it is apparently THE interprative text book regarding the LDS “canonnical” books–used in all LDS seminaries, owned and used by almost all missionaries, bishops, elders, etc…
3. By its continued use (with apparently NO retration or re-editing–cepting maybe the black men can’t be priests ) LDS apparently still supports McConkie’s “opinions”