[I should note that the below accounts are cobbled together from several
sources and therefore may read a little uneven and slightly repetitive;
however, I think the material represents a fine review of what is known of Mormon
Doctrine and others of Elder McConkie’s fine
doctrinal works.]
At the commencement of his service
as a new member of the First Council of the Seventy in 1946, Bruce McConkie
visited with President J. Reuben Clark, a Counselor in the First Presidency—a
conversation meant to orient and prepare the new General Authority for what lay
ahead of him. Bruce recorded: “Pres. Clark called me in for an informal
talk. He . . . said he wanted to counsel
me, in the language of Dr. James E. Talmage, against the ‘witchery of
words.’ He also said that he knew I was
a student of the gospel but wanted to tell me that there were two viewpoints on
many points of doctrine which were held by good Latter-day Saints, and said not
to try to force my views on anyone for that would only lead to hurt feelings and
ill will. . . . Pres. Clark also said
that I would get sat on, but to take it in good stead, and wherein I was wrong
to correct the errors, but that wherein I was right, not to worry about the
rebuffs.” Not long after this interesting interview, Elder McConkie recorded
further counsel given him and other General Authorities by the prophet: “[In a
Council meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles] Pres. [George
Albert] Smith spoke for about 20 minutes on various subjects…. He said that
when any man present wrote anything as doctrine that great care should be taken
to be sure it was correct, and that if there was any doubt, it should be left
unwritten. People would think it was the
voice of the Church when those present wrote, he said.” These settings of
inspired counsel set the stage for the literary developments spread throughout
Elder McConkie’s life; some that went well, some not as well.
Sound Doctrine
The
compilation of Doctrines of Salvation,
and the encyclopedic Mormon Doctrine,
were not really Bruce R. McConkie’s first literary efforts. He was actually
involved with editing and abridging the Journal
of Discourses into what was proposed to be a multi-volume set (probably
10). In asking one of Bruce’s brothers about whatever happened to this project,
he said something to the effect that President J. Reuben Clark had halted it,
with the idea being that they weren’t going to have a Seventy correcting the
sermons of apostles and prophets. I don’t know how accurate that statement was by
the time it got to me; people tend to summarize and reword when telling old
stories.
I did find the following mention of
matters related to Sound Doctrine in
Pres. Clark’s diary:
Yesterday morning
(March 15, 1956), Brother Bruce R. McConkie came in to learn something about
the matter that was before the First Presidency, that is, the publication of a
part of the sermons in the Journal of
Discourses, as already submitted to us.
I told him that I
had read with some care about 150 pages; that I had reported to each of the
Brethren separately, but that we had not had any joint conference regarding the
matter; that I would arrange for such a conference as early as I could; that
since he had come in to find out about the matter, I would be glad to tell him
the way in which I was impressed, and which I understood was the impression of
the other brethren expressed separately.
I said I assumed
that he would not print, that is, was not proposing to print the sermons of the
other brethren, that is, the early brethren, on such matters as the Adam-God
theory, so-called, and the sermons on plural marriage. He said that was his
idea. I said that I personally and I thought the other brethren agreed with me,
felt it would be unwise to issue a Journal
of Discourses with those sermons omitted inasmuch as that would give the
cultists an opportunity of attack which might increase our present difficulties
instead of mollifying them.
I called attention
to the fact that some of the sermons that he was proposing to print were of a character
that might challenge the wisdom of the printing of them, and I instanced the
sermon by one of the Pratts, I think it was Parley P., who gave a discourse on
electricity, which of course, did not represent the scientific developments in
that field since he spoke. Brother McConkie agreed with that.
I told him that I
had not checked his references, footnotes, so I could not speak about them.
I mentioned the
fact that the title he had given to the collection “Sound Doctrine,” implied
that there was other doctrine that was unsound and that perhaps it would not be
wise to give forth that implication. He seemed to agree with that idea.
He made a
suggestion for another title which I have forgotten, but which was open to
somewhat of the same objection. In this connection he made some observation to
the effect that his “sound doctrine” might not, of course, be the sound
doctrine of some of the other brethren.
I said I felt that
we were having a great many books published now by some of the leading
Brethren; that these books did not always express all the sentiment of the
other Brethren, at least some of them, and might be contrary to it; he admitted
that.
I also called
attention to the fact that it would have been better if he had conferred with
the Brethren before he began the printing of his book, instead of afterward,
and he admitted that that was a mistake which he had made.
I told him that I
would bring the matter to the attention of the Brethren so soon as I could and
intimated to him strongly that perhaps in general the thoughts I had expressed
would be the thoughts of the Brethren and that it would not be wise to issue
the publication as he had planned it.
I said we were
anxious that he should not suffer any undue loss in the matter. [Diary of J.
Reuben Clark, March 16, 1956]
Needless to
say, Elder McConkie was unable to proceed with Sound Doctrine. Instead he gave the contract with the publisher to
his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, who produced one volume entitled Journal of Discourses Digest. Joseph told
me that this project was also discontinued as the publisher eventually decided
to look into the idea of printing all twenty-six volumes of the Journal rather than an abridgment of ten
volumes of them.
Doctrines of Salvation
In his biography of his father, The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of
a Son, Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote these summaries of Bruce’s work on Doctrines of Salvation:
“His first venture into print was
the three-volume work entitled Doctrines
of Salvation, in which he edited material from letters and other writings
of Joseph Fielding Smith. When correspondence did not adequately cover a
particular subject, he would elicit it from President Smith, put it into
writing, and have him sign it. President Smith never found it necessary to
change so much as a word of what Elder McConkie had written.” (3)
“The mutual respect existing
between him and his son-in-law gave rise to the idea that Bruce edit a
three-volume work drawing on the many letters Joseph Fielding Smith had written
over the years. It also created a wonderful opportunity for President Smith to
mentor the young Seventy. Many interesting gospel discussions between the two
men grew out of this work. In 2001, nearly fifty years after they were first
published, the three volumes were combined into one and given as a Christmas
gift to Church employees and CES personnel.” (387)
The 2001 leather edition of Doctrines of Salvation given to church
employees by the First Presidency had some revisions that were directed and approved
by the Church Correlation Committee, meaning the First Presidency and the
Quorum of the Twelve. The Correlation Department was asked to assist with
preparation. These included an alteration of subject order, and removal of
material that could be considered offensive to the Reorganized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (now renamed The Community of Christ).
Of his
father-in-law’s doctrinal writings and his preparation of Doctrines of Salvation, Elder McConkie himself said: “It was my
privilege to read all that he had written in published form, and all of his
private correspondence, as I prepared three volumes of his sermons and
writings, I found more material about Elijah and his mission, about the visit
of the Lord Jesus in the Spirit World, and about temple ordinances and the
sealing power in general than any other subject on which he had spoken.”
(Genealogical Seminar, July 30, 1975, 1)
Mormon Doctrine: A
Compendium of the Gospel:
The first
edition of Mormon Doctrine,
considered by many to be one of the most highly collectible Mormon books produced
in the 20th century, achieved its coveted standing after a unique
and legendary “saga” that has long been a favorite topic of discussion for
collectors and others. Appearing in 1958, it was published by Bookcraft.
The following works contain
information about Mormon Doctrine:
Dennis B. Horne, Bruce R. McConkie:
Highlights from His Life & Teachings (2000), chapter 5, and the second
enlarged edition, pages 427-431 contains extra info also given herein; also Dennis
B. Horne, Determining Doctrine (2005),
pages 25-26; and Joseph Fielding McConkie, The
Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son (2003), chapter 11. It is
assumed that readers of this blog will already have some familiarity with these
sources before reading the below, which both includes information from those
sources and adds to it. I have not tried to reproduce everything about Mormon Doctrine here that is in those
books, such as the reports given Pres. McKay, but that info is largely
available in those books or elsewhere online.
Gregory Prince and Robert Wright
wrote David O. McKay and the Rise of
Modern Mormonism, that included several pages (49-53) supposedly examining
the Mormon Doctrine episode, but
their biased interpretation excluded some sources that would have given a more
rounded and balanced perspective. In short, they seemed to be trying to spin
the story as negatively toward Bruce as possible.
Bruce’s wife Amelia indicated that
he was working on Mormon Doctrine at
the same time he was compiling and editing material for Doctrines of Salvation. She said: “The idea for Mormon Doctrine had been in his mind for
a long time, and he was continually jotting down ideas on cards or notes he kept
in his pocket. He never ran out of things he wanted to know, study, or write
about. After he passed away, our sons found his long list of titles for future
books he wanted to write.”
When Mormon Doctrine hit bookstore shelves in
1958, it was greeted with enthusiasm, quickly becoming a best-seller. This was
largely due to its clear, understandable, encyclopedic format, as well as the
fact that its author was a general authority, having by then been a member of
the First Council of the Seventy for over a decade.
Elder Glen
L. Rudd recorded his experience with Bruce and Mormon Doctrine:
Elder Bruce
McConkie and his family lived on the same street as we did—about three houses
away. His kids played in my yard and mine played in his, and there was always
some activity. One day I was standing on his front lawn when he came home from
work in his car. As he got out of the car, he had a large package in his hands.
I said, “Bruce, what do you have there?” He said, “Oh, this is my new book. I
just picked up the first six copies that have been printed.” He then turned to
me and said, “You are worthy to receive the first copy of Mormon Doctrine that has ever been distributed.” He then handed me
the book. He said, “I’ll sign it later, but I want to go and show my wife my
new book.”
I
have now had in my possession for all of these many, many years, this lovely
book—the first one given out—by Bruce himself. This book is all over the world
and is constantly used by members of the Church.
Because it gained wide-spread use
among Latter-day Saints, and also because it declared—in strong, forceful
terms—interpretive positions on many subjects (including a controversial
definition of the “great and abominable church” as being Roman Catholicism; an
explanation regarding blacks and the priesthood before 1978, and denunciation
of the theory of organic evolution), it eventually came under scrutiny by some
of the Brethren, and under attack by liberal, semi-dissident types.
After Mormon Doctrine was published in 1958, Bruce
got “sat on” emphatically by the First Presidency. They had asked for and
received reports from two members of the Twelve (Elders Romney and Petersen)
that they used in determining their course of action in dealing with Bruce and
his book.
Related to Elder Romney’s report,
which is available elsewhere, is this tidbit: On January 16, 1959, Elder Romney
recorded in his diary that he, “Rode home with Delbert L. Stapley. En route we
called on President Clark at his home. . . . He seemed to appreciate our call.
He said Presidents McKay and Richards expressed confidence in me when they
assigned me to read Bruce McConkie’s book, Mormon
Doctrine.” Elder Romney’s assignment was due, of course, to his reputation among
the Brethren as an orthodox scriptural and doctrinal giant.
Regarding Elder Petersen, his
daughter and biographer wrote this about him:
If he felt
something was right, he did not hesitate to try to accomplish the means to make
the changes necessary. Now he seemed to
appoint himself a doctrinal watchdog, and if anything was printed that he
knew was incorrect, he wrote to the people involved. When he read an article in
the Ensign that presented a false
teaching as to how the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon came about,
he sent off a five-page letter to the magazine advisors listing the reasons
that the disputed theory should be discarded….
If Mark was aware
that any of the General Authorities or Regional Representatives might be
preaching doctrine not in harmony with Church teachings, he never hesitated to
point out the error in their thinking. (167).
In Elder Petersen’s case regarding this
matter, he was not self-appointed, but was assigned by the First Presidency to
read Mormon Doctrine and report back.
Elder Marion
G. Romney’s initial report included this statement:
The
author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has
produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to
the authorities on most any gospel subject.
As
to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features
and the author’s assumption of “sole and full responsibility” for it, its
nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written
pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project
without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it
is to speak for the Church on “Mormon Doctrine.” Had the work been authoritatively supervised,
some . . . matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others
modified.[1]
About a year later further extensive
reports were submitted to President McKay by Elders Romney and Petersen
(January 7, 1960). Brother Romney was Bruce’s second cousin and had once been
his stake president. They were both strong “scriptorians” (a word Elder
McConkie is thought to have invented) with similar doctrinal views and
preaching styles.
Elder Petersen had been Bruce’s boss during
his short stint as a reporter with the Deseret
News, and from that point forward was senior to him in Church leadership as
well. This placed Elder McConkie at a disadvantage where doctrinal
determination was concerned, since the Brethren generally defer to those senior
to them in Church leadership—and always to the First Presidency. From available
evidence it seems justifiable to conclude that these good brethren experienced
some diversity of views with each other on largely non-fundamental issues—and Mormon Doctrine excelled at giving a
strong opinion on an amazing breadth of gospel subjects.
Joseph Fielding McConkie
said: “When he wrote Mormon Doctrine
he drew freely upon the Inspired Version [JST], quoting from it about 300
times. These were announced as errors by those who were critics of his book.”
One of these critics counting the JST as an error is thought to be Elder
Petersen. He supposedly came up with over one thousand errors. Without recourse
to his copy of the book, we cannot say definitively what they all were. However,
we can say that although his findings were part of a report to the First
Presidency, they do not constitute any kind of official repudiation of the
book; also that President Joseph Fielding Smith would have disagreed with the
vast majority of Elder Petersen’s list, and that there simply wasn’t all that
much wrong with the book.
The most
difficult part of the over-all experience for Elder McConkie—possibly the most
difficult experience he ever endured with his ecclesiastical superiors—came
when he met with the First Presidency (then consisting of David O. McKay, J.
Reuben Clark, and Henry D. Moyle) and Elder Petersen about the matter. I am
informed of the following by a source of unquestioned authority and integrity:
When they called Bruce in, they
asked him to take a seat, but he said he would prefer to stand. Elder Mark E. Petersen
of the Quorum of the Twelve was also present during this meeting and did most
of the talking. President Henry D. Moyle (the second counselor) indicated that on
this occasion the First Presidency gave Bruce a “horsewhipping”; that they were
really hard on him and raked him over the coals for an extended period of time;
that it was the worst criticism that that First Presidency had ever given a general
authority; that he went home feeling bad that they had been so hard on Bruce;
it was basically Mark E. Petersen doing the talking and the First Presidency
going along with and backing him up in his criticisms of Bruce’s book; that
Elder Petersen was the real force behind the (temporary) discontinuance of Mormon Doctrine; he was the reason the
First Presidency gave it so much attention and why Bruce got in so much trouble
over it. President Moyle indicated that
Bruce simply listened to what they had to say, didn’t offer any arguments or
protestations, said he had no questions at the end of the meeting when he was
asked if he did, and he left.
President Moyle indicated that he
felt bad enough about their “horsewhipping” of Bruce that he resolved to make
it up to him someday. So a year later when the time was right and a mission
president was needed in Australia, President Moyle decided to call Bruce to serve
there as a way to make up for what they had done, and so called him. The service
as a mission president was the greatest thing that could have been done for Elder
McConkie because he became the boss, the president; he could make his own
decisions, could sign the checks, could run things his way. Bruce had never
been in a position of authority where he could run things but as a mission
president he finally had it; the mission experience really helped and changed
and improved Elder McConkie. Elder Marion G. Romney really didn’t think that
much doctrinally was wrong with Mormon Doctrine,
and President Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t think anything was wrong with it.
(Source withheld out of considerations of confidentiality; for narration of a
similar experience involving an author, the First Presidency, and Elder Mark E.
Petersen, see Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures
of a Church Historian, pages 146-47).
Regarding the above mentioned
meeting of the First Presidency, Elder Petersen, and Bruce, Joseph Fielding
McConkie wrote: “After the experience President Moyle observed, ‘I've never
seen a man in the Church in my experience that took our criticism—and it was
more than criticism—but he took it better than anyone I ever saw. When we were
through and Bruce left us, I had a great feeling of love and appreciation for a
man who could take it without any alibis, without any excuses, and said he
appreciated what we said to him.’"
The First
Presidency also counseled Elder McConkie to “answer inquiries on the subject
[of their decisions regarding Mormon
Doctrine] with care.”[2]
Bruce seems to have fully complied with this counsel since a surprisingly
little amount of direct comment regarding his book from Elder McConkie himself
seems to be known—especially considering how almost legendary some elements of
the story became. One evidently rare explanation was written by Elder McConkie
in response to a critical inquiry he received from a non-Latter-day Saint:
If
you . . . had an understanding of our teachings, you would know that we have
what is called the Standard Works of the Church. These are the Bible, the Book
of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. We accept them as scripture. They are binding
upon the Church. Everything else that is written, no matter by whom, is the
best wisdom and understanding of the author. It should be perfectly obvious to
anyone that if I write a book entitled, Mormon
Doctrine, I do all that is humanly possible to make it conform to and
reflect accurately the teachings and doctrine of the Church. Insofar as I know
I have done this in the publication you mention. If there are members of the
Church who do not understand some matter I have written, all I can suggest is
that they study the scriptures and enlarge their understanding to the point
that they come to a proper view of whatever is involved. Obviously either I or
anyone else could make a mistake on some point, but I assume from your letter
that whoever is objecting to something is doing so out of prejudice or lack of
understanding. It would be well for all of us to seek to learn what the truth
is on all points rather than to strive to defend our preconceived prejudices.[3]
On the
right occasion and with the right people, Elder McConkie was able to poke a
little fun at some of the reasons for the notoriety attached to Mormon Doctrine, especially the first
edition, and later with the second edition as well, once jokingly referring to
them as the “non-expurgated” and “expurgated” versions. To a close friend, with
whom he knew he could share his sense of humor, he wrote this note:
March
16, 1960
Los Angeles
Calif.
Dear ___:
Today I ran into
a puzzling problem. Is it true that
birds can read? And if they can’t, who
tells them things that are none of their business? This is what happened: I stopped at San Juan
Capistrano to see the old mission buildings constructed by that great church
which is not the Lord’s Church. The
swallows are not yet back, but there were some Catholic pigeons around, and so
it happens, I had a rather, shall we say, discomfiting experience. And me with a clean white shirt put on only
this morning! Now what I want to know is
this: How did those pigeons know what I wrote about the Catholics in Mormon
Doctrine? Can you help me? This is very disturbing! Sincerely,
Bruce
In listening to some audio
recordings of lectures given by Elder McConkie, I noted that he occasionally
mentioned and quoted a Catholic prayer book that he possessed. He read from it
to illustrate how far afield they had wandered from the scriptures in various
areas, such as the trinity. His perusal of this book may well have influenced
him into adding certain anti-Catholic-doctrine articles to his book that
refuted them.
In January of 1997 I interviewed
Joseph Fielding McConkie by phone about Mormon
Doctrine. He said that around 1966 Spencer W. Kimball approached Bruce and
asked him to republish Mormon Doctrine
with the changes, with him acting as advisor. Bruce had dropped the matter and
forgotten about it but now proceeded under Elder Kimball’s direction.
In July 1997 I had another phone conversation
with Joseph Fielding McConkie. Upon asking him for clarification of the First
Presidency’s role in the republication of Mormon
Doctrine, he told me that the First Presidency, specifically Pres. McKay,
had asked Elder Spencer W. Kimball to work with Elder McConkie as advisor or
overseer of the revision of Mormon Doctrine.
As far as
Bruce’s relationship with Mark E. Petersen, I am told that they never “had
words” (got upset at each other), but Bruce did not care for Elder Petersen and
they didn’t get along. (Personally, I think the world of both of them; two
marvelous spiritual giants.) Whether he was right or wrong in doing so, Elder
Petersen took it upon himself to make life very difficult for Elder McConkie in
relation to his best-selling book. However, in my opinion, things gradually
became better between them. It seems probable to me that as time passed they
were able to resolve differences to some mutually satisfactory point. Support
for my conclusion is found in a 1980 BYU devotional address titled “The
Covenant People of God,” given by Elder Petersen. Toward the beginning of his
remarks, he referred to some of Bruce’s comments to the Council of the Twelve
in their regular Thursday temple meeting, relating them in a respectful, almost
reverential manner. Among other things, on that occasion Elder
Petersen said:
This morning at
seven o’clock, the Counsel of the Twelve met in their fourth-floor assembly
room in the Salt Lake Temple. We were there from seven until twelve in a very
moving, spiritual meeting. The sacrament was passed, and we all partook of it
in a most solemn manner and were grateful for the privilege. We were glad that
we could again renew our covenants with Almighty God, and with his beloved son,
Jesus Christ, to serve him and keep his commandments; we were glad for the
great opportunity of having his Spirit to be with us. And we had the Spirit in
rich measure.
Behind the
pulpit in that little meeting room is a beautiful mural depicting the Savior in
the Garden of Gethsemane. We talked about Gethsemane and about the Savior.
Brother Bruce R.
McConkie spoke at length about the tremendous suffering that the Savior went
through. He did it in a very touching
way and with great solemnity, reminding us how the Savior went into the Garden
of Gethsemane. . . .
Brother McConkie
called our attention to the fact that the suffering incident to the Atonement
began there in Gethsemane and that the Savior suffered so dreadfully that drops
of blood came from his pores. . . .
Brother
McConkie then told us that the Savior was not kneeling in that prayer. The suffering that he endured was so
infinite, so much beyond our understanding, that even he fell prostrate upon
the ground.”[4]
Such moving
references from one Apostle about another evidence a feeling of brotherhood and
regard and I doubt Elder Petersen would have mentioned them if he felt any ill
will.[5]
Even apostles offend on occasion and must forgive each other just like the rest
of us.
In 1968,
some two years after the appearance of the second edition, President Harold B.
Lee made this observation to religious educators, which I have thought related
to Mormon Doctrine and other like
books: “There is a vast difference between a book coming from the President of
the Church containing his writings which we label gospel doctrine and a book
coming from a writer not in such an authoritative position who labels his book,
‘Gospel doctrine.’ See what I mean?” (“Viewpoint of a Giant,” Summer School
Devotional Address, Department of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion,
Brigham Young University, July 18, 1968, 6-7.)
As
mentioned earlier, in 2003, a biography of President David O. McKay appeared in
which the authors selectively used only those historical sources that referred
to Mormon Doctrine and its author
disapprovingly, exaggerated and manipulated them, and completely ignored
others.[6]
The resultant depiction of this episode is one that the book’s critics may find
appealing, but is so one-sided and biased that it lacks credibility. They also insinuated
that Bruce “audaciously” pressured an aged and infirm President McKay into
making an ambiguous statement about Mormon
Doctrine that Elder McConkie could then interpret to mean he had been given
permission to “move with boldness” and publish a second revised edition.[7]
A comprehensive review of all the available sources, including the above, simply
does not support these allegations.[8]
Anti-Mormons and other critics
often seek to portray the book as an embarrassment to the Church. This claim
must be judged as largely fallacious, with a few minor exceptions, given that
most regular Mormons have responded to it by studying and quoting from it for
almost sixty years—and how virtually no non-Mormons (except anti-Mormons
looking to make mischief) ever really read in it. Elder Spencer W. Kimball made
this observation, which applies to Mormon
Doctrine and any other book containing gospel explanations: “Now, I am sure
it was quite a surprise to you when I indicated that the writings of all the
good members of the Church were not scripture and could not necessarily be
depended upon, and that their writings, numerous of which there are, were their
own concepts. I did not want to deprecate their splendid efforts, for on the
whole the commentaries written by many people are excellent, but the student of
the gospel must be able to cull the material and to take that which fits into
the total big program, and to discard anything else which appears to be
speculative on the part of the writer of the commentary.” (Edward L. Kimball,
ed., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball
[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 136.)
Elder
McConkie told a good friend that he had never meant to hurt the feelings of
Catholics; at the time he simply hadn’t thought to give that possibility consideration.
He had written the entire book—really his first non-compilation original work—from the perspective of
scriptural and doctrinal commentary for a latter-day saint audience, not for
spite or criticism of others.
One of the finest indirect
compliments Elder McConkie’s work received came from an apostolic associate
several years after his death. Elder David B. Haight, in an unusual General
Conference talk, spoke of a remarkable visionary experience given to him during
a critical illness. After relating details of the last events of the life of
Jesus Christ that he was shown in vision, Elder Haight bore fervent testimony
of the infinite power of the atonement and in so doing quoted from Mormon Doctrine.[9]
By 2008,
word circulated that Deseret Book, which had long-since acquired Bookcraft and
therefore the copyright, was letting the current edition of Mormon Doctrine go out of print. The
reason was that sales had slowed. Critics tried to cultivate the rumor that the
Church was embarrassed by and therefore repudiating the book; an absurd claim.
I even had producers/reporters from local TV stations calling me to ask about
it. The fact was that I had been told that it would no longer be printed a year
before the critics discovered the change and ramped up the publicity machine. Mormon Doctrine simply wasn’t selling
well; in fact, most of Bruce’s books weren’t. Over a quarter-century had passed
since his death; he was being forgotten (a tragedy in itself); other more well-known
authors’ works were replacing his on the bookstore shelves. Its content was
available to subscribers on Deseret Book’s online library “gospelink.” Those
who speculate otherwise are not trustworthy sources of information and are
usually mad at the book for its uncompromising stand on subjects like
evolution.
I thought it interesting when I
noticed that Deseret Book placed a plaque on the wall of their corporate office
reception area stating that Elder McConkie was one of their authors that had
sold over a million copies of books he had written. I would guess that Mormon Doctrine accounted for a generous
portion of that number.
The first
edition was issued in a green cloth binding with a likeness of Joseph Smith on
the lower right-hand corner, as well as a much rarer black cloth binding. The
second edition has been issued in limited leather runs, with cream and black
bindings among them.
Regarding
one of the reasons why some were upset with the book, Joseph Fielding McConkie
wrote: “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.” And: “Question: It has been suggested that the treatment
of the Catholic church may not have been the primary source of the criticism
directed at Mormon Doctrine but,
rather, that the standard Elder McConkie held out for the members of the Church
caused some to squirm. Is that the case? Response: I think so. It is hard to
imagine that a lot of Catholics in Salt Lake City were buying a book entitled Mormon Doctrine and then taking offense
at it. The Protestants had been saying worse things about them for four hundred
years, and it was, for the Catholics, like water off a duck's back.” These
statements are quite correct, but some further facts should be noted as well.
One was that Bruce’s wording for that 1958 identification was changed for the
second 1966 edition to: “The titles church of the devil and great and
abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of
whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic
social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a
course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the
kingdom of God.” Having made the change as requested in his book, later
evidence indicates that Elder McConkie continued to view matters as he stated
in the first edition. In one of his
last major talks before his death he said, speaking of the Bible:
And it once was in
the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization, founded
by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim
and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion.
In these hands it
ceased to be the book it once was. Originally “it contained the fulness of the
gospel of the Lord.” It was sent forth “from the Jews in purity unto the
Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.”
Then it came into
the hands of “that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above
all other churches.” They took “away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts
which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord.”
Having
noted this evidence, a second observation is in order: Elder McConkie was not
speaking officially for the Church in Mormon
Doctrine (any printing or edition), nor in the above discourse, and as
well-considered and thoughtful as his comments may have been on any subject
therein, they did not necessarily reflect the official position of the Church.
Joseph
Fielding McConkie also wrote:
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. [This is in accordance with what he said to me in our interviews,
quoted above.]
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.
Whatever faults
one might want to attribute to Bruce McConkie, no one who knew him could
question his integrity or his discipline, particularly where matters of
priesthood direction were concerned. Never in my life have I known a man who
was more disciplined or obedient to priesthood direction. Bruce McConkie would
have died a thousand deaths before he would have disregarded the prophet's
counsel or that of the Quorum of the Twelve. . . . When individuals went to him
with concerns that fell outside the bounds of the authority or responsibility
explicitly given to him, he simply refused to hear what was being said. He
followed counsel and minded his business. I have never met, nor do I expect to
meet, a man more disciplined to the order of the priesthood. To suppose that he
would reject the counsel of the president of the Church or the Quorum of the
Twelve is to completely misrepresent the man and the truth.
Question: How do you know President
McKay directed your father to reprint Mormon Doctrine?
Response: My father told me that
President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of
handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction.
One of the more
foolish criticisms of Elder McConkie that I encounter in online chat-sites is the
charge that he ignored the First Presidency and issued the second edition of
his book despite their express wishes and direction. This blog piece should fully
counter that fallacy. What actually happened was that President McKay, for
whatever reason, changed his mind and decided to allow Bruce to rewrite/edit
the book under Elder Kimball’s supervision, and then republish it. This is just
not that hard of a concept to grasp. It is simply a very good and useful book,
despite what liberal extremists might say.
Joseph
Fielding McConkie explained: “Question: How did Elder McConkie feel about the
suggestions made by Elder Kimball? Response: He was very appreciative. Elder
Kimball was a wise mentor who taught him
the difference between being right and being appropriate. The fact that
something is true does not necessarily mean one ought to say it. Question:
Elder Kimball's list of things that needed changing sounds much less extensive
than the changes that were made in the second edition. Does this suggest that a
wiser Bruce McConkie did a lot of rewriting on his own? Response: Yes, it does.”
(italics added)
Joseph also
wrote:
Question: What
doctrinal errors were corrected between the first and second editions of the
book?
Response: I do not
know of a single instance in which Elder McConkie was asked to change or chose
to change his doctrinal position. The second edition of Mormon Doctrine is a substantially better book. The tone of the
book is softer, articles attacking false doctrines born of apostasy but not
directly germane to Mormonism have been dropped, and eighty pages of new
material have been added. No doctrinal changes were made, however. The essence
of each entry remains the same.
The report
submitted to the First Presidency by Elder Spencer W. Kimball indicates that he
checked changes made on fifty-six pages, all of which he approved. He did not
indicate a single instance of doctrinal disagreement with what was written.
Again, I know of no single instance in which the doctrine announced in the
first edition differed from that of the second edition. Much was changed by way
of tone: Things were simply said more appropriately, but the same things were
said.
Another,
and one of the most famous, changes was Elder McConkie’s wording on blacks and
the priesthood. The 1978 revelation to President Kimball lifting the
restriction had not been received at the time of printing of either the first
or second enlarged editions, but his wording about blacks not being able to
receive the priesthood in this life was removed and the announcement of the
revelation included in the revised second edition, what I have seen some people
refer to as a third edition, though technically not correct.
Lastly,
Joseph wrote about what seems to be a twinge of regret that Elder McConkie had
about writing Mormon Doctrine: “He
did observe on a number of occasions that, perhaps, in writing the book he had done
too much for its readers. ‘It may have been better for them,’ he said, ‘to have
been required to find answers for themselves.’”
A New Witness for the
Articles of Faith
In his
biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:
Elder McConkie
also wrote a seven-hundred-page work entitled A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. He took an approach to the
Articles of Faith entirely different from Elder James E. Talmage’s work eight
decades earlier. Elder Talmage had sought to give credibility to Joseph Smith
and to Mormonism by showing that its doctrines were based on the Bible. Elder
McConkie, on the other hand, sought to explain them in the light of modern
revelation. He felt that the best evidence that God has spoken in our day is
found in what God has said today. . . .
This work, which
was warmly received, elicited the following note of appreciation to Amelia from
one of her husband’s colleagues [Elder Dallin H. Oaks]: “I read choice books a
few pages at a time, so I can savor them and think about their implications.
Proceeding in that manner, I have just finished reading A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. This is undoubtedly the
most profound and inspirational doctrinal book I have ever read. It has and
will have a great influence on my thinking and my ministry.” (389-90)
Enough
said, for those with ears to hear and hearts to understand.
Some seven
or eight months before his death, Elder McConkie wrote this: “Since my call as
a General Authority in 1946 I have tried, with varying degrees of success, to
follow what I felt was the pattern of the past and the approved course of the
present in both teaching and writing.” I think we might venture to say that Mormon Doctrine was at once both a
spectacular success and a painful learning experience, one that would have been
less so if he had remembered President Clark’s counsel (as quoted above)
better. He handled the internal rebuke he received as well as anyone could.
While on
the subject, below are some comments I have encountered from some knowledgeable
individuals regarding Elder McConkie’s books. I include them here since they
may be of interest to readers:
A few years later I traveled to
Provo to participate in the CES Religious Educators’ Symposium on the Book of
Mormon. I attended a presentation by Joseph McConkie on the Gathering of Israel
and the Second Coming of Christ. This time I was stunned, not by the power of
the presentation alone, but by what he was teaching. Joseph put forward an
approach to the gathering of Israel, including the gathering of the ten tribes,
that I had not encountered before. He didn’t speak of the lost tribes in the
center of the earth or on the North Star or another planet, but rather as a
people scattered among the nations who would be gathered just like everyone
else is gathered—through receiving the testimony of the Book of Mormon,
accepting the restored gospel, and joining The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. And then, of all things, to substantiate his most unusual
claims, he quoted extensively from the Book of Mormon and then at length from a
book by his father yet to be published by Deseret Book. The book, of course,
was The Millennial Messiah. I can
still remember looking around to see if anyone else was as intellectually
startled as I was, and I noticed across the room that George Horton was engaged
in an animated conversation with Gerald Lund about these things. I enjoyed the
symposium very much, as I always did, and took many things home with me on
which to reflect. When The Millennial
Messiah was released, I devoured it and was once again quite startled by
Elder McConkie’s rather unusual teachings about the gathering of Israel. I
phoned Robert J. Matthews, BYU’s dean of Religious Education, and asked him
what he thought about the whole thing, what he made of Joseph’s teachings and
of Elder McConkie’s book. Dean Matthews calmly explained that he agreed
completely with Joseph’s conclusions and then added humorously, “Now, Bob, if
you will read and study this book [The
Millennial Messiah] carefully, then put it under your pillow at night, you
will be exalted in the celestial kingdom!” I have often wished that it was that
easy.
Joseph Fielding McConkie:
When the first volume of Doctrinal New Testament Commentary was
published in 1965, Dad included the text of the King James Bible side by side
with the Inspired Version. Again he was sharply criticized for so doing. The
two volumes that followed in 1970 and 1972 continued with the same format.
After his call as an Apostle he
wrote a six volume work to testify of Christ. It begins with the Promised Messiah and concludes with the Millennial Messiah. Between these two
books are four other volumes of commentary on the ministry of Christ both in
the Old World and in the New. In the writing of these books he drew heavily on
what we learn in the JST.
Relative to Elder James E.
Talmage’s work Jesus the Christ Dad
said, “His work is profound and sound and should be studied by every member of
the true Church,” and yet I hear his voice saying, ‘Now is the time to build on
the foundations I laid some seventy years ago, using the added knowledge that
has since come by research and revelation, and to pen a companion volume to the
one I was privileged to write.’
Elder Tamage’s work was first
published in 1915. I note three things in particular that place us in a
position to enhance what he wrote. First, President Joseph F. Smith’s vision of
the redemption of the dead, received in 1918. Second, President Joseph Fielding
Smith’s Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, first published in 1938. And third, our conversion to the Joseph
Smith Translation, which did not take place until its introduction to the
Church in our new edition of the Bible published in 1979. These three sources bring with them a great
deal of light not enjoyed by a writer in 1915.
As to his own work Elder McConkie
said, “It too is but an opening door. Others who follow will find the errors
and deficiencies that always and ever attend every mortal work, will correct
them, and, building upon whatever foundations then exist, will write greater
and better works on the same subject.”
His final work, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith,
was also intended to stand on the shoulders of Elder Talmage’s work The Articles of Faith. The great
difference in the two books is that Elder Talmage teaches or defends the basic
beliefs of the Latter-day Saints from Biblical texts. Elder McConkie declares
the same doctrines from the revelations of the Restoration drawing heavily on
the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, the
Joseph Smith Translation, Lectures on Faith, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Joseph Fielding McConkie:
“On a number of occasions during
the preparation of lessons, I have studied a matter out and then gone to my
father seeking the benefit of his insight and understanding, only to go into
the classroom and have someone quote some statement or supposed statement by my
father which refuted what he had just taught me. I am also aware of matters on
which he contradicts himself within the books he wrote. When I have pointed
these out to him and suggested that he might have one statement or the other
changed for subsequent editions, his response was, "Goodness no! Let it
stand." When he changed his mind on a matter he had no interest in
covering the trail. He also had no difficulty in saying, ‘I was wrong.’ There
is no reason to suppose that such attitudes were distinctive or peculiar to him
and are not shared to a greater or lesser degree by all of our prominent
theologians.
“It reflects a rather acute case of
spiritual anemia to argue that because someone once said something that was
wrong, he is never to be trusted again. This affliction is common to those who
seek to disqualify something one of our leaders has said which they don't want
to accept. Supposedly they are excused from accepting the present counsel if
they show some previous error or mistake in judgment on the leader's part. This
can be likened to a man saying to his wife, ‘You burned the toast once, and I
will never eat anything you cook again.’ At best, such an attitude would weaken
the marriage and in some instances it could result in starvation. So it is in
the realm of spiritual things: if we reject the inspired counsel of a leader
because he once burned the toast, we have certainly weakened the bonds of our
covenants and enhanced the possibility of spiritual starvation.”
Sometime, I
believe in the late 70s or very early 80s, Elder McConkie wrote a manuscript
that has never been published. Titled, These
Three: Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, it remains a subject of intense
interest among Mormon book collectors who speak of it in hushed tones and understandably
covet it. One of Bruce’s brothers informed me that the book was superb. Another
well-placed source informed me that one reason it was never published was
because it had not been through the internal review processes established for
proposed General Authority books.
I am aware that Elder McConkie did
not particularly care for Church “Correlation” in the limited sense of when an
office staff member was assigned to read and evaluate/correct his (Bruce’s) own
work before it could be used or distributed. In point of fact, there wasn’t an
employee of the Church qualified to question Elder McConkie’s breathtakingly deep
and insightful doctrine—but that was/is the process in place. I speculate that
rather than have a staff member in the Office of the Twelve or First Presidency
fuss over his manuscript, he decided not to submit it for review; hence no
publication. As anyone who has read A New
Witness for the Articles of Faith can attest, Elder McConkie could wade
into deep doctrinal water and do so on a solid and sure scriptural footing. It
may be that These Three was thought
to be too deep for many readers.
Imagine what would happen today,
when bitter critics/antiMormons and enemies of the Church (not to mention
hostile media) run rampant, if a book of doctrine written by an apostle were to
come forth that approached the brass plates or perhaps even some of the sealed
portion of the Book of Mormon—what a firestorm of mockery and scorn and gnashing
of teeth and rending of the sacred that would immediately take place; a pearl
of great price cast before noisy swine. It is this same principle that keeps
our modern prophets and apostles from teaching many precious doctrines and
bearing more plain testimonies than they otherwise could and would—but the dogs
of the world would turn again and rend them. Therefore, without the express promptings
of the Spirit, they keep such pearls to themselves.
In conclusion, there is a sad movement
around the fringes of the Church today, as well as among those decidedly
outside of it for good reason, to seek to marginalize or dismiss or bring into
disfavor Elder McConkie’s uncompromising doctrinal teachings. His son knew it
well, as noted above. In answer, I recommend to thoughtful people the views and
course of the man who in all likelihood will become the next president of the
Church, President Russell M. Nelson: “Occasionally, I would have an idea I
wanted to discuss or had a question. I would knock on his door, and he was
always gracious, always warmly welcoming. When I could see this was an
opportunity to learn from him, I would ask him to put his remarks on pause for
a minute while I called Elder Oaks and asked him to come up so we could
converse with Elder McConkie together. That was a rare privilege.”[10]
For people
who only knew of Elder McConkie from his authoritative demeanor when speaking
at the pulpit—which is how most people naturally would have—his friend Glen
Rudd wrote: “If only the people of the Church could have seen the other side of
Bruce McConkie they would have realized what a balanced, magnificent individual
he became in his journey through life.”
[1] Letter, Marion G. Romney to David O. McKay, 28 Jan.
1959, 1.
[2]
As quoted in “Item’s from David O. McKay’s Office Journal Relating to the
Publication of Bruce R. McConkie’s ‘Mormon Doctrine,’” Jan. 28, 1960.
[3] Bruce R. McConkie Correspondence, April 3, 1979.
[4]
“The Covenant People of God,” BYU
Speeches, 129-30.
[5] Years after the Mormon
Doctrine issues had become history, both Elders Petersen and Romney
enthusiastically sustained Elder McConkie in his call to the Quorum of the
Twelve. Marion G. Romney, whose elevation to the First Presidency occasioned
the vacancy in the Twelve that Elder McConkie filled, told Bruce that it had
been made known to him during Bruce’s funeral address for President Joseph
Fielding Smith that he would be called as the newest Apostle.
[6]
See Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 2005), 49-53, and notes on 418. For example, the
authors quote only the negative portion of the quotation from Romney’s letter
to McKay and omit the complimentary part. Further, they seem to have decided to
review this controversial episode using only the McKay diary sources, and
ignored all other primary and secondary sources—a decision markedly contrary to
scholarly standards of balance and objectivity..
[7]
See Prince and Wright, David O. McKay,
52-53.
[8]
Church leaders do not work and serve in a vacuum, and Elder McConkie was not in
a position to purposely misconstrue instructions from President McKay for his
own ends, nor was it his character to do so. As stated Elder Spencer W. Kimball
was assigned by the First Presidency to advise and approve Elder McConkie’s
revisions. If Bruce had done something as egregious as these authors imply, he
would not have been called as a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
six years later.
[9]
“The Sacrament—and the Sacrifice,” Ensign,
Nov. 1989, 60.
[10] See http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865637915/President-Nelson-reflects-on-being-an-Apostle-of-the-Lord-discusses-possible-announcement-of-3-new.html?pg=all
A remarkable essay. As one who never felt much affinity for the authoritative McConkie approach, as I perceived it from a distance, I have to say this piece of writing has been eye-opening and moving. Thank you.
ReplyDelete