Our Bishop who is somewhere over 70 visited Relief Society today and quoted Bruce R. McConkie. Something like we lived with Heavenly Father in the premortal world for 3 million years. I just cringed. There are so many new converts in our ward that just eat that stuff up. Grrr.

aqinas–this one was an entirely innocuous “definition” of “estate.”

Matt W.–I think that the problem with BRM is entirely one of perception, so it is a problem created by us, not him. He spoke (and wrote) authoritatively, which is very appealing to some people, especially in the realm of religion. Others, who may disagree with either the substance or the presentation of what he said, find that troubling. Personally, I am the kind of person who chalks up much of what General Authorities say as personal opinion and well-intentioned advice; BRM is included in that. Whatever he thought of the things he said or wrote (whether he was as sure as he sounded), I don’t know. It is problematic, I think, when people attach themselves and their testimonies to another persons’ ideas. Mostly, I think people use BRM quotes to argue basically inconsequential minutia, but I am very troubled when people latch on to some specific ideas he espoused and argue beliefs that I believe to be unchristian or that goes against scripture.

I am not sure that made much sense, but I don’t think I demonized BRM, although I too have seen some visceral reactions here and there.

I understand why people might have presented MD once upon a time at a baptism, I would hope that something else, maybe True to the Faith, would be presented now.

I’m sad I didn’t get to go to SS today (we had the same creation lesson). My regular calling got in the way. Unfortunately, I did get to go to Sacrament Meeting, where one of the speakers pooh-poohed any mother who decided to go back to school or serve in the community while still having kids at home.

“the McConkie quotes were removed.”

That’s not exactly true.

Some of the quotes in Gospel Principles 2009 “were updated to reference materials that are more accessible to members of the LDS Church worldwide,” church spokeswoman Kim Farah explains. “For example, the series, Teachings of Presidents of the Church, is referenced because it is available in 28 languages, while Mormon Doctrine is only available in a few.” (The Salt Lake Tribune, 12/31/2009.)

More importantly, there were no quotes from Mormon Doctrine in the pre-2009 Gospel Principles manuel anyway. None. There were only four parenthetical references guiding the reader to further information in Mormon Doctrine. In three of these cases the text preceeding the parenthetical reference did not change and in one case the preceeding text was replaced with a quote from Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

The only quotation from Bruce R. McConkie that is found in pre-2009 editions of Gospel Principles was replaced in the 2009 edition with a quotation from Russell M. Nelson’s October 2006 general conference talk (see page 249). But if you follow the reference and read Elder Nelson’s talk, he is not only saying the same thing, he is quoting Bruce R. McConkie!

So is Russell M. Nelson the kind of person you were thinking of who “cannot resist a McConkie reference”? Your Relief Society teacher is in good company. In fact the General Authorities continue to quote not just McConkie, but Mormon Doctrine itself, in their official talks and articles. The following list is from just the past five years. Ensign June 2005, 58; May 2006, 106; April 2007, 15; Oct. 2007, 18; May 2008, 44; June 2008, 29; Nov. 2008, 75 & 92; May 2009, 38; Sep. 2009, 37. What has your experience been with these Mormon Doctrine fans?

mcfan,

you miss McConkie but can’t even spell his name right?

#10,
Stay classy.

While we’re painting with broad brushes,- equally interesting as the generational hypothesis of MD fans is the generational or possibly political hypothesis of BRK shunners. Or Packer shunners.

McConkie wrote some deep profound stuff. His final testimony is rightfully one of the classics of late 20th century talks. However he clearly also wrote a lot of other things which are embarrassing to the Church. If people took his writings as they were, “according to Br. McConkie,” it would be fine. The real problem isn’t McConkie at all but all the members who rely on him to interpret the scriptures for them. It would be much healthier to appreciate McConkie but recognize him as one voice among others.

I would, for instance, be very uncomfortable were someone to have quoted McConkie’s Seven Deadly Heresies on creation and science yesterday during the creation lesson.

Clark–thanks for that comment; like I said, I think the BRM issue is one of perception–when people perceive him to be an authority on ALL, and that undermines their confidence in their own ability to read, think, and pray about scripture, I think that is a problem.

Jim Donaldson–I think you are right on. The fact is, I am quite positive that I have and will continue to say embarrassing things, but since no one gives me any authority, dismisses other information or their own access to revelation, or makes personal life decisions based on what I have said, it just doesn’t matter.

My grandfather served in the same mission as BRM and reports that he was enormously popular.

And, of course, Elder McConkie was in the original cast of the Hill Cumorah Pageant.

IIRC Bruce McConkie wrote “Mormon Doctrine” at the ripe ‘ol age of 26. I find it a crutch for people to clear any confusion and move on to what’s next to be memorized.

What happened to inquiry and pondering.

GS

Sam B., Sorry, I was not aware that Elder Nelson (or any other living apostle) had quoted a paragraph from Man: His Origin and Destiny in any Church publication. And if that happened (which is doubtful), it would certainly not be an endorsement of the entire volume.

Wow Daniel the link you posted was even more tangental than mine. I don’t know what your beef is with the other poster, but it seems like you have the same problem with Obama as well since he’s pretty much continuing the status quo on that base. What’s it like to be the only principled one in the world?

For the record, if what happened in that article was true, it’s horrible and people should be punished. While we’re talking about shoulds, the terrorists probably should have been killed in combat as well I suppose…

For the record, the church also removed all references to “Discourses of Brigham Young” as well. I think R. Gary is correct that these removals were due more to availability of the source material rather than any internal church conspiracy.

Daniel,

I don’t get it. I’m not referenced or cited in the article and I never worked on Gitmo. I’m puzzled, and I’ll just leave it at that.

The real problem isn’t McConkie at all but all the members who rely on him to interpret the scriptures for them. It would be much healthier to appreciate McConkie but recognize him as one voice among others.

Well put, Clark. I think this would take some effort on members’ parts, though- people actually having to find more sources than the one-stop shop of MD. I’m not necessarily pessimistic about this happening- I’m hopeful that people feel the spirit of their teaching stewardship enough to spent the time and energy.

So, who among the anti-McConkie-ites has made a line-by-line study of Mormon Doctrine to disprove its contents? And made that study available for peer review?

I side with Matt W. The quote removals/updates were part of correlation of materials for a world wide church.

Jim Donaldson: Prince/Wright omitted key facts about McConkie and his book. That is how Prince/Wright created a very misleading section in their McKay biography titled “The Controversy over Mormon Doctrine.” I just thought you ought to know that.

Everybody in the whole world should stay classy at all times.

I don’t miss McConkie. I don’t Not miss him on purpose because I don’t like him. I just don’t miss him. Now, Neal A Maxwell, I miss!

I actually read Mormon Doctrine from cover to cover when I was being all born again after my first husband died. I don’t remember much. But I did read it.

Interesting opposing point of view, but I’ll remain unconvinced, to the degree that it matters. I’ll gladly take Spencer Kimball’s fifty. That’s plenty for me.

We seem to be the last two in the pool, and I’m getting out.

My real gripe is described in #15 above, where I even say some nice things about BRM. I think one, GA or not, makes a tactical error, at least now, in quoting the book (perhaps even recognized in the new GP manual) because too often the discussion becomes the quotation not topic. I think his ‘last word on the subject’ tone does that and makes ALL discussion in class thereafter divisive, right or wrong, because often the quoter usually thinks that if he or she is quoting BRM or MD then he or she, just like BRM, is armed with the last word on the subject too. BRM’s tone and word choice, intended or not, reeks of ending discussions, not advancing them. It’s not helpful. It’s a distraction. And my guess, is, yes, all of that was included in Spencer Kimball’s fifty.

You can have the last word if you want it.

crickets

#18,
Thanks for pointing out that BRM was only 26 when he wrote Mormon Doctrine. that helps my confusion a lot. It’s easier for me to accept that some parts may be non-inspired opinion when I realize that he wrote it before becoming an apostle.

Guy (#18) and Ron (#40): Bruce R. McConkie was born in 1915. Mormon Doctrine wasn’t published until 1958 when he was 43. The second edition came out in 1966 when he was 51.

Left Field, also before he became an apostle, McConkie decided the gathering of Israel should no longer be to Utah but to local stakes in every nation. Today, when this change is mentioned, Elder McConkie’s talk is cited (see, for example, Russell M. Nelson, “The Gathering of Scattered Israel,” Ensign, Nov. 2006, p.79, footnote 42.)

Right, Left Field. That’s why McConkie gets the credit.

Bookslinger, do you have a source on that? I’ve given two sources (in #44 and #46) for the turning point being 1973. If I’m missing something here, I’d very much appreciate knowing more about it. Thanks.

Bookslinger, the Our Heritage passage identifies the beginning of a process. McConkie’s talk in Mexico as quoted by Harold B. Lee announces the end of that process. (Ensign, July 1973, p.7.)

The Sunday School lesson (linked in #46), explains that from 1831 to 1838, there were two gathering places, one in Ohio and one in Missouri. Similarly, from 1911 until 1973, there were again two gathering places, a convert’s native land or Utah. Members were encouraged to stay in their native land but could still gather to Utah.

Beginning in 1973, the gathering of Israel no longer includes moving to Utah. “Every nation is the gathering place for its own people.” By the way, that’s McConkie in Mexico as quoted by Russell M. Nelson in the October 2006 general conference (see #44). The same words were also quoted by Boyd K. Packer in the October 1992 general conference (Ensign, Nov 1992, p.71.)

McConkie made neither the decision nor the announcement. He simply reiterated the policy already in place. Read pp. 363-367 in Prince and Wright for a summary of the gradual changes which culminated in the final end to gathering in the 1950s.

“Without fanfare, [President McKay] began to send the message that the time for emigrating to the United States had permanently passed.”

President McKay is quoted as saying, “We aim to keep our adherents here instead of encouraging them to immigrate.”

Monroe McKay is quoted as saying, “During my mission, the official announcement to end the gathering came out.”

Chapter 3 of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay also credits him with “building temples, increasing the number of missions, organizing stakes worldwide, [and] persuading the Saints to build up Zion in their homelands rather than emigrate to America.”

Really, I just can’t imagine why you would be making a claim that a member of the First Council of the Seventy would receive and announce revelation for the Church, particularly when the actual president of the Church had been saying the same thing for the previous couple of decades.

I assume they cite him for the same reason I have cited him–because he explained the concept so clearly and eloquently.

I have no idea why we’re even having this conversation. Bruce R. McConkie wrote Mormon Doctrine and gave his Mexico City address while he was a seventy, not an apostle. Therefore, he was not speaking with apostolic authority in either case. Being a future apostle doesn’t count. Future apostles might include a couple of seventies, a stake president in Saskatchewan, a teachers’ quorum president in Des Moines, and a Catholic altar boy in Buenos Aires. But they’re not apostles now, we don’t know who they are, and they don’t speak with any special authority because of their future calling. The calling of an apostle is not retroactive.

Fact: Bruce R. McConkie was a seventy when he wrote Mormon Doctrine. He was a seventy. End of story. What the heck are we arguing about?

My sister was the foster child, for several years, of a stake president in a major city. McConkie spoke at their stake conference and came over for dinner after. These are her exact words of their experience with him:

“Alot of general authorities came there. Anyway, he was rude. My foster mother even commented on it. I didn’t take him as rude. He scared me. He looked mean. My foster father said it was because he was so tired. But, he barely spoke to anyone and refused to answer when spoken to. It was a very tense meal.”

Not to turn this post into a bash of McConkie. It’s possible he was exhausted. You guys wouldn’t want to be around me when I’m drunk, but you’d hate me more when I’m tired. I’m simply unreasonable and unbearable. So maybe he was tired.

I wonder, though, how a person so representative of God in the eyes of members can be so un-Christian. How does that work?