"Mormon Doctrine" and Mormon doctrine

[Last_Daze]

I came across a relatively old story to the effect that Deseret Books will no longer be publishing Bruce R. McConkie's classic work Mormon Doctrine. While I have never read it, I am aware both of its contents and the reasons that it is unpopular among many people, containing as it does large amounts of speculation, teachings presented as official doctrine which are not, and things that are just flat-out incorrect or wrong. It also seems that the Church itself is trying to distance itself from the work, having (for instance) removed all references to MD from the newest Gospel Principles book.

It does occur to me, though, that to my limited knowledge BRM's work is one of the few attempts ever made to really put a systematic Mormon theology down on paper, and that for all the flak he took over it, he did a pretty good job. So I have a couple of questions, some of which may be unanswerable, but I'd like to get thoughts on it, as a person who is trying to learn everything about Mormonism and the Church as possible.

Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church? If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches? And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

[HiJolly]

Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church?

Sort of. Many Saints that became adults during the 60's and 70's became convinced that it was doctrine and so embraced it fully, and thus it could be said that the lessons taught and the opinions given by those people (even today) do echo the contents of MD.

If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches?

The Gospel Principles manual is probably the best *common* authoritative source. I think a more interesting source is the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Mormonism, as it is more scholarly in nature and less given to fundamentalist thinking.

It can be browsed here: Encyclopedia of Mormonism

And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

Not bad, but perhaps a bit confusing. Then again, if you're trying to decipher what some old Mormon is talking about, it could be useful!

HiJolly

[Gwen]

if the church is creating a distance from something i would take that as a good hint to not put to much energy into studying it. study the things of the greatest value first.

[Last_Daze]

if the church is creating a distance from something i would take that as a good hint to not put to much energy into studying it. study the things of the greatest value first.

Agreed, Gwen. But I have met with a certain frustration so far in my study of the church and what it actually teaches. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the LDS church seems to dislike any kind of clarity in laying out the teachings as they are. Statements made by leaders on isolated occasions are not official teaching, but current Church publications may or may not be. Many of those publications however do cherry-pick isolated comments made by Church leaders on isolated occassions. Interestingly enough, Mormon Doctrine is a commonly referenced source for many of those publications as well, though apparently that is beginning to change. It feels to me that I am constantly hearing about what is "not doctrine" but rarely is someone able to tell me about what "is doctrine."*

I guess my frustration derives in part from the fact that a major part of Mormonism is that God speaks to the prophets and guides the church, providing clarity and certainty in matters of faith. Yet there seem to be many faithful LDS who deny that the church has any particular teaching authority at all; quite apart from any kind of certainty, what I read touted as something people love about Mormonism is a doctrinal ambiguity that allows them be LDS without having to ascribe to those teachings they find unpalatable. Frankly, this kind of cafeteria mentality was one reason I decided I was done with mainstream Protestantism; I'd hate to find it to be prevalent in the LDS church as well.

I don't think that I am suggesting that the church hierarchy force belief on anyone, or that we start a Mormon inquisition. But I think the church should strive for a clear, comprehensive and consistent exposition of its teachings and doctrine.

*And no, I am not worried about things so pedantic as cola beverages and R-rated movies.

[MarginOfError]

The problem I have with Mormon Doctrine is that it didn't seem particularly scholarly to me. I felt like it was reading high level conclusions without the foundational work to support it. Almost like a book by Dr. Phil where nothing is documented and you're left to take his word for it.

I don't really care who you are...if your teachings don't come with the qualifier of "Thus saith the Lord," I want there to be some kind of justification for your conclusions.

The result I saw from people studying Mormon Doctrine is that they'd pass on studying the scriptures, adopt McConkie's conclusions, and then not be able to explain where those conclusions came from. That kind of parroting made me uncomfortable, so I made a point of not using it as a reference. Instead, if wanted to justify some bit of doctrine, I did so by starting in the scriptures and making a chain of logical and documented observations that naturally led to the conclusion.

As I started doing this, I found that a lot of the conclusions that were made in Mormon Doctrine required assumptions along the way that weren't explained. And if those assumptions didn't hold true--they were often made without justification--then the conclusion didn't necessarily follow. Thus, McConkie's work was only valid insofar as his assumptions were correct.

[GADBabaganoosh]

I think the church should strive for a clear, comprehensive and consistent exposition of its teachings and doctrine.

Gospel Principles

Boom. Done.

[tubaloth]

I came across a relatively old story to the effect that Deseret Books will no longer be publishing Bruce R. McConkie's classic work Mormon Doctrine.

I actually didn’t believe this. Now I’m pretty sure I could go into a Deseret Book and buy it, but much to my surprise when looking up McConkie its not listed on DeseretBook.com

While I have never read it, I am aware both of its contents and the reasons that it is unpopular among many people, containing as it does large amounts of speculation, teachings presented as official doctrine which are not, and things that are just flat-out incorrect or wrong.

McConkie never claimed there were official Doctrines, he even put a notice in the front that they weren’t. But really with the title of the book it’s hard to get away from it.

I think the first version hurt the book, the second edition is better and very worthwhile.

It also seems that the Church itself is trying to distance itself from the work, having (for instance) removed all references to MD from the newest Gospel Principles book.

Did they have many references in Gospel Principles (old version) that quoted Mormon Doctrine? I had never heard this.

McConkie is quote a lot in the Institute manuals. I don’t know how they can take references from Mormon Doctrine out, but leave references from other of McConkies books?

Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church?

That is a tough question. Because in theory stuff in Mormon Doctrine might be a teaching at some point in time in the church, it doesn’t mean that is what is being taught now. I would look at Mormon Doctrine more as a whole of all the doctrines past and present taught. That would leave it up the reader to know and understand which doctrines are in past, or not taught weekly at church.

If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches?

Not really. Mostly because of the reason you state, we live by Revelation. The idea that we wouldn’t get any more doctrine (or couldn’t) doesn’t fit into LDS teaching. Also, we believe the scriptures and the Spirit is our guide in studying the Gospel. If you don’t find it with those two things, then it isn’t doctrine.

The struggle is more for those outside the LDS faith. They want a quick understand of our teachings and there isn’t such a thing, because that is not how learning the Gospel happens.

And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

I have no problem with this. As long as Mormon Doctrine is used to study the Doctrines. Meaning the person is actually looking up the scriptures Elder McConkie quotes. They try to study and see what Elder McConkie is teaching from those scriptures. For this purpose I think the book is a great resource.

I do think his newer book “A New Witness to the Articles of Faith” is more of a Read through book. And better suited for those trying to understand LDS Doctrine. It does quote scripture but its more into assuming you know the scriptures.

[bytor2112]

Seems funny to me and quite confusing that the church would quote Elder McConklie's work repeatedly.....not just Mormon Doctrine but his other works as well...Messiah Series, etc and now suddenly distance itself from it. Why? Was it wrong? Spencer W. Kimball worked on the revisions in the second edition and apparently their was no errant doctrine from the first edition, rather a softening of tone and removing some references that didn't fit with the stated purpose of the book.

Also, I might add, that we read McConkie daily ( if you study the scriptures that is ) he wrote the chapter summaries....largely from his earlier works...Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. I like Mormon Doctrine and McConkies other works as well....a great source of reference...but, I note that Elder McConkie plainly stated that the "things of God could only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit" and that we should search the scriptures and seek revelation. Personally, I feel on very safe ground reading his views and works and if it WAS good enough for the church to quote throughout teaching manuals then it should STILL be good enough to stand today.....of course language changes and the same idea's can be expressed differently. If not, it's just more fodder for anti's to say.."well their goes them Mormon's again...now they don't even believe what they have taught for years."

Edited December 1, 2010 by bytor2112

[mightynancy]

and if it WAS good enough for the church to quote throughout teaching manuals then it should STILL be good enough to stand today...

Our theology has evolved quite a bit over the years, not just in the area of what BRM says. IMO it doesn't make the church less true - in fact, I think we're peeling away what's unneccessary or nonessential to get to the real gospel, and getting out of the way of individuals' relationships with God.

[bytor2112]

Our theology has evolved quite a bit over the years, not just in the area of what BRM says. IMO it doesn't make the church less true - in fact, I think we're peeling away what's unneccessary or nonessential to get to the real gospel, and getting out of the way of individuals' relationships with God.

I think the church has changed the message somewhat....much less focus on justice and more on mercy. Perhaps that is good and perhaps that allows mankind to justify their sins and cling to the hope that the Lord will save them anyways. Dunno. Alas Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie are becoming outdated. (sad sigh)

Edited December 1, 2010 by bytor2112

[Last_Daze]

- in fact, I think we're peeling away what's unneccessary or nonessential to get to the real gospel, and getting out of the way of individuals' relationships with God.

What are these unnecessary things that the church is getting rid of? How have they obstructed individuals' relationships with G-d? Why were they part of the gospel in the past, but are not now part of the gospel as taught by the church?

[JudoMinja]

It is important, when learning about the church, to frequently revisit the basics. Sorting out what is and isn't "doctrine" can become confusing when there is so very much information out there. Many books, biographies, talks, lessons, manuals, excerpts, personal interviews, etc, etc, etc cover a wide range of teachings. Some barely scratch the surface of a particular topic while others delve deep into the details. Some are clear cut revelations, warnings, councels, and others are speculations and imaginings. Some are written by prophets, others by thoughtful members, and still others by scholarly individuals not claiming membership but still interested in the church.

Of course there are going to be areas where information just doesn't mesh together, people butt heads, and there are disagreements about the exact meaning and intent of a particular lesson. We are living in a time of constant and frequent revelation. The Lord does indeed speak through his servants the prophets, and from the 1830's to now those prophets have been speaking "Mormon doctrine". There is a LOT to learn. People have enough trouble agreeing on the meaning of everything in the Bible. Add to that a couple centuries of modern revelation and there is bound to be at least some confusion.

However, the basics never change. We can all sort out for ourselves what is speculation and what is truth when we rely on the Spirit to guide our studies. This church is not a "new" church. It is the RESTORED church of Jesus Christ himself. It has been since the foundation of the earth, with Adam and fully established when Christ was on the earth. It was lost during the time of the great apostosy, and restored with the visitation to Joseph Smith. He translated the Book of Mormon, the most true of any book on the earth. When we abide by its teachings we can draw closer to the Lord than by following ANY other book (including McConkies "Mormon Doctrine"). The Articles of Faith outline the very core and center of our beliefs. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are scripture to be studied alongside the Book of Mormon and Bible. The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet further outlines the standards we uphold. General Conference is a source of revelation- messages from the Lord himself spoken through his prophets that most pertain to our current circumstances.

These are the basics. This is the "doctrine" of the church. Anything or anyone that teaches contrary to these basics is not in alignment with the restored truth. Here is where we find our clarity. It is easy to become lost in all the details, but when we step back and review the basics, relying on the Spirit and our own personal revelation to confirm the truth of those basics, we are able to find the clarity that was once lost to us.

One of the most recent conference talks had a message about this very thing- revisiting the basics. There was a story of a football coach who brought his team together and identified the football itself, explaining its design, origin, dementions, etc. Did the same with the football field and so on. I believe this message was most particularly meant for those getting tangled in the "this is doctrine"/"this is NOT doctrine" battles. Of course some attempt to shrug aside non-doctrinal revelations in order to justify continuing striding the fence, so to speak. Others, like yourself, are struggling to find the clarity in it all.

Another one of the greatest messages of this church is that we are all subject to the receiving of PERSONAL revelation. The messages from the prophets are general, targeting the entire church and, in fact, the entire world. It is your personal study which will lead you to understand how best to apply those teachings in your own life. No one else can receive revelation FOR you except one who has stewardship over you. That would be your father (head of your household- until you have established your own household), your bishop (head of your ward), your stake president (head of your stake), and the prophet (head of the entire church and receiver of revelations for the world). Current prophetic teachings hold more weight than past teachings. And the scriptures, of course, will always be the core.

Revisit the basics. Seek for yourself personal revelation of the truth and what to do about it. If the details are becoming to confusing, don't worry about it! Just take a step back, go to the basics again, and start over. I, personally, have always felt an affirmation of the truth of the gospel and this church when I consider the foundational principles of its teachings. The "doctrine" is true and always will be true. As we take steps to align ourselves more closely with that truth, we will come to understand more and more. Eventually, we will be able to filter through all those details with ease, identifying truth and falsehood without difficulty. But that comes with time, patience, study, faith, and ACTION. ACT on what you know to be true. SEEK more truth. And always, always come back to the basics.

[mightynancy]

Daze, let's use a relatively uncomplicated example. Let's go to the topic of birth control. There was a time when the church actively preached that it was wrong to limit the number of children a family has, barring severe illness. That gets in the way of an individual's relationship with God if he/she feels inspired that just the one child is enough (or two, or whatever), yet the church is telling him/her that it's selfish and evil to limit the number. Either that family follows the inspiration they've felt from the spirit, or they follow the church, which they believe to be divinely led - which one is right?

Currently the church declares that while children are a blessing, and we should welcome as many as we are able to ("able" is for us to define individually with the Spirit's guidance, not the church). The number is between the parents and the Lord. I don't think the underlying doctrine has changed, but our policy/practice has. It seems the church is returning to basics, to a focus on each individual's relationship with God.

While we are to love God and our neighbor with exactness, I think the church is getting less nitpicky about some of the details in other areas. IMO it's a good thing.

[rameumptom]

The Church does not have a systematized theology. I've talked on this several times with some of the Church's big thinkers, and most agree that the Church is such that it could not easily be systematized, such as with the Catholic Church's catechisms and edicts.

There are various reasons for this, but the main ones being that 1. we are a Church of continuing revelation, which does not lend itself to be systematized. 2. Our leaders teach basic principles and doctrines, and leave us to receive revelation for the rest of it. That our current CHI is 12% smaller than the previous one shows the Church is getting further away from a standard system.

The problem with MD is that it attempts to systematize things that are not made to be so. Continuing revelation has made most editions (if not all) of MD obsolete on many issues. Priesthood revelation, making Seventies into General Authorities rather than just a missionary quorum in the stakes, replacing Regional Reps with Area Authorities, a greater emphasis on grace, a greater emphasis on key doctrines, .... each of these and more make MD look like one of those old barns on the side of a country road that is still used, but seems ready to collapse.

For us to accept MD as anything other than a collection of writings by Elder McConkie, means we must jettison our own right to personal revelation. No where does it say we personally can't receive revelation on things he did/didn't. He speculated on many things, such as blacks not receiving the priesthood until the Millennium. I'm guessing many members who pondered and prayed about such pre-1978 may have received a different answer.

Given he died in 1985 and the number of times I've read the scriptures in the past 25 years, plus the scholarly articles I've read and discussions I've had, I'm guessing my understanding on many gospel issues are probably as correct, if not more correct than his. But I don't publish my ideas in such an authoritative manner as he did. I do not want anyone being confused between actual doctrine and my speculations. While he prefaced the book with a disclaimer, he still wrote with an authoritative style that convinced many members that his was the doctrine of the Church. How many people read disclaimers, anyway?

Pres Kimball and Elder McConkie are not becoming outdated. Their testimonies of Christ are still very relevant, and that was/is their key calling and responsibility. However, their speculative writings have become outdated, because they must become so in a Church with continuing revelation.

Pres Packer has insisted we return to the key doctrines and principles of the gospel. By and large, we have. That means we don't have General Authorities speculating as they once did over the pulpit or in their writings. It allows us as individuals to receive personal revelation on how to implement those doctrines and principles. We have as much right to revelation in our personal lives and callings as they do in theirs. For this reason, Pres Packer spoke on fathers ordaining their own sons, because it is their right and duty. We are getting away from the idea of GAs ordaining elders that are not in their direct line, because the priesthood is priesthood, regardless of who holds it.

Elder Oaks also presented in last Conference an idea that moves us further past Elder McConkie. There are two priesthoods: the authoritative line and that of believers. We follow the authoritative line for ordinances and guidance on key duties. However, the priesthood of the believer falls upon all members who readily seek personal inspiration. It teaches them how to obtain the personal relationship with God, while the authoritative line gives us that which we cannot receive on our own.

We need to drink deep of the waters of living prophets and apostles, both those in Church leadership, and those who head up our own family.

[bytor2112]

The problem with MD is that it attempts to systematize things that are not made to be so. Continuing revelation has made most editions (if not all) of MD obsolete on many issues. Priesthood revelation, making Seventies into General Authorities rather than just a missionary quorum in the stakes, replacing Regional Reps with Area Authorities, a greater emphasis on grace, a greater emphasis on key doctrines, .... each of these and more make MD look like one of those old barns on the side of a country road that is still used, but seems ready to collapse.

The problem with MD is the title. Had it been titled "A handy study guide for Latter Day Saints" it likely wouldn't have caused a stir....nor sold as many volumes. Elder McConkie felt it was his mission to drive secularism from the church and this work was an attempt to provide an A to Z resource to help seperate Mormon fiction from Mormon reality. Since it is still widely quoted ( which is quite remarkable considering the publish date of 1958) in teaching material as is the Messiah series....I doubt it is as old a barn as you describe.

Given he died in 1985 and the number of times I've read the scriptures in the past 25 years, plus the scholarly articles I've read and discussions I've had, I'm guessing my understanding on many gospel issues are probably as correct, if not more correct than his. But I don't publish my ideas in such an authoritative manner as he did. I do not want anyone being confused between actual doctrine and my speculations. While he prefaced the book with a disclaimer, he still wrote with an authoritative style that convinced many members that his was the doctrine of the Church. How many people read disclaimers, anyway?

I note that your comments sound mighty authorative and while I respect your comments and learn much from them.....I also note that you are not Apostle/Special Witness Rameumpton. His authorative style was....his style. In many talks by Elder McConkie he expressed much of what you have expressed....that we are each entitled to our own personal revelation and should seek after it. Some people seem to think he was heretical....unbending on some issues...organic evolution being one. But, I might add, quick to admit error, as with the 1978 revelation.

Pres Kimball and Elder McConkie are not becoming outdated. Their testimonies of Christ are still very relevant, and that was/is their key calling and responsibility. However, their speculative writings have become outdated, because they must become so in a Church with continuing revelation.

I wonder how much of their writings THEY would consider as speculation....or would they tell you it was based on revelation. How off the mark was Elder Kimball in "The Miracle of Forgivness"? How relevent are the speculative writings or maybe revelatory writings/quotes/comments of any of the past church leaders that have been sustained as prophets, seers and revelators?

.......whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Edited December 1, 2010 by bytor2112

[bytebear]

Much of the Bible Dictionary found in our current scriptures is taken from Mormon Doctrine, so clearly there was and is a place for McConkie's work. I think that now there are simply better more thorough resources available to those who want an A to Z topical guide to LDS theology and Mormon Doctrine (the book) isn't necessary.

[Carl62]

My favorite quote on just what exactly is doctrine comes from a former Seventy, B.H. Roberts: "The church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine". That sums it up in a nutshell right there for me.

[rameumptom]

I agree there is a place for Elder McConkie's work. But we also need to recognize that our Bible Dictionary is dated as well. It works well enough for its purpose.

As for Miracle of Forgiveness, I'd note the story of Sasquatch as one portion that was neither necessary nor apropos for the book. It caused much speculation over the decades regarding a story that is actually second hand. Is Cain Sasquatch? Does it really matter, and what does it have to do with forgiveness?

I agree that I am not an apostle. However, I strive to explicitly denote my speculations as my own. Elder McConkie's authoritative sounding statements on all things, whether doctrine or speculation makes it hard to separate the two. It seems like you either have to accept all or none sometimes with his writings. I prefer somewhere in between. Yes, he was quick to recant some things concerning the 1978 revelation, however with the exception of a brief addendum in more recent copies of MD, there still remains the intent of the curse of Cain, etc., in the book. For him, it seems the only mistake was the when (before or after Millennium began), and not whether the entire curse issue was a mistake. Twenty five years after his death, and over 30 years after the revelation, we are still having discussions on the curse of Cain! And we should be well beyond that now, but for those who continue quoting MD.

So, I have a copy at home. And I use it. But I use it with a grain of salt. It is the writings of a brilliant apostle. But we have modern apostles and scholars that are even more important in my search for doctrinal truth.

[bytor2112]

As for Miracle of Forgiveness, I'd note the story of Sasquatch as one portion that was neither necessary nor apropos for the book. It caused much speculation over the decades regarding a story that is actually second hand. Is Cain Sasquatch? Does it really matter, and what does it have to do with forgiveness?

Oh my....well of course Cain IS Sasquatch....evryone knows that...right?

[mnn727]

Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church?

No, never has been.

If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches?

The Gospel Principles Manual

And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

Learn the doctrine first from official sources, then if you want to you can browse MD.

[ozzy]

In my opinion, an even better source for simplified stepwise LDS doctrine than gospel principles is Preach My Gospel. It provides the very foundation of doctrine that we should be built on and my support for that statement is that it is a huge source of study for today's missionaries. I would go so far as to say that anything that goes against what it says (and it is entirely based on scripture, hence my bold claims) is against the doctrine of the church, and any personal bar raising with regard to its teachings are just that... personal. It is a simplified and highly supported compilation of doctrine designed so that even the newest members of the church can understand it.

As for the works of McConkie, Kimball, or any other individual past or present I can say only two things. All such publications come with a statement in the introduction informing the reader that the book is not church doctrine. The second is that when considering doctrine, we are taught that the words of the living prophets have position ahead of those of dead prophets.

[ozzy]

In my opinion, an even better source for simplified stepwise LDS doctrine than gospel principles is Preach My Gospel. It provides the very foundation of doctrine that we should be built on and my support for that statement is that it is a huge source of study for today's missionaries. I would go so far as to say that anything that goes against what it says (and it is entirely based on scripture, hence my bold claims) is against the doctrine of the church, and any personal bar raising with regard to its teachings are just that... personal. It is a simplified and highly supported compilation of doctrine designed so that even the newest members of the church can understand it.

As for the works of McConkie, Kimball, or any other individual past or present I can say only two things. All such publications come with a statement in the introduction informing the reader that the book is not church doctrine. The second is that when considering doctrine, we are taught that the words of the living prophets have position ahead of those of dead prophets.

[Flyonthewall]

There are many doctrinal truths contained within Mormon Doctrine, that is why it had been quoted from. But there are also opinions contained in it which did not accurately reflect the actual church teachings. This is where the conflict came in.

[martybess]

I think he did a pretty good job and in my mind he's like CS Lewis. He had a great desire to write and for the most part at the time it was the only thing of it's kind. Now we have more precise and concise publications like Gospel Principles and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism .

[Carl62]

Now we have more precise and concise publications like Gospel Principles and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism .

I find it interesting how people said the same exact thing about Mormon Doctrine 25-30 years ago and now look how it's turned. I wonder if we'll be saying the same thing about those books in 30 years? I guess that's why I like to stick with the good 'ole standard works and them only. It's a lot less confusion and more clarity that way.