Mormon Doctrine 1958-2010

[moksha]

"Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Babylon.
We will rise to a greater power, we will win ourselves a throne."
-- from the gospel-rock opera Bruce R. McConkie, Super Star

Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the publication of Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. This book helped shape two generations thinking about Mormonism before it was finally put to pasture in 2010. What are your thoughts about this book?

[crossmyheart]

I have an older one that was my mother's copy. I am holding on to it in case I ever need it to prove the racist bigotry of the church's past. I have read some of the crazy but cant bring myself to read it cover to cover. I remember when he was truly worshiped like a god. And then it seemed like overnight he was just as passe as Paul H. Dunn. I had a seminary teacher who loved to show a vhs recording of his famous testimony of seeing Christ. Over and over.

[document]

I like Mormon Doctrine.

As a Mormon, I disagreed heavily with McConkie's teachings and his approach to doctrine. BUT, I liked the fact that he wasn't ashamed of his religion. Much of my experience as a Mormon (and my experiences engaging with Mormons after leaving) is that many Mormons are ashamed of their church. Sometimes they outright lie about their beliefs or they weasel their way out of it.

Bruce R. McConkie didn't do that. Mormon Doctrine is unapologetic and gets to the point.

Here's an example: A while back someone asked on Facebook if Mormons really believe God is named "Elohim". I responded, "Yes, they believe that God is named Elohim". A Mormon responded shortly after and said, "The name of our church is 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints', not 'The Church of Elohim'". While what they said was technically true and they didn't deny that they worship a God named Elohim, they were clearly trying to persuade someone that Mormons don't believe God is named Elohim. They were ashamed.

If you had asked Bruce R. McConkie that same question, he would have said, "Yeah we do!"

If he were a swearing man, he probably would have "!@#$% YES WE DO!"

[Hagoth]

Bruce R. McConkie didn't do that. Mormon Doctrine is unapologetic and gets to the point.

Yes. The problem with Mormon Doctrine is that it actually contained Mormon doctrine, something that the church desperately avoids these days because they don't want their members to realize how fluid it really is.

My 1976 editions says, for example: "Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are know to us as negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin (Moses 5:16-41, 7:8, 12, 22). Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage though the flood. (Abra. 1: 20-27) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty (Abra. 1:20-27) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. (Moses 7:8)"

The problem, of course, is that this was ACTUAL Mormon doctrine, and McKonkie backs it up with scripture. The church is running away from doctrine toward the land of vanilla platitudes so fast that seismographs in the UofU geography lab are picking up the vibrations of Bro. McConkie rolling in his grave.

[Corsair]

In Greg Prince's biography of David O. McKay, we get the story of finding numerous errors in the text of Mormon Doctrine. The LDS church made the overt, internal decision to slowly and quietly deal with this rather than any kind of public censure of McConkie's ideas. It seems that McKay was a non-confrontational guy and I'm also not sure that any progressive scriptorians were in the church at that point who could openly contend with McConkie or his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith. Producing an official book of LDS doctrine with as much detail as "Mormon Doctrine" is not an easy task.

Instead, we have two generations of Mormons who are burdened with bad ideas and bad policies. Having a living prophet is not as helpful as we had hoped when fixing unhelpful doctrine.

[MoPag]

I like Mormon Doctrine.

As a Mormon, I disagreed heavily with McConkie's teachings and his approach to doctrine. BUT, I liked the fact that he wasn't ashamed of his religion. Much of my experience as a Mormon (and my experiences engaging with Mormons after leaving) is that many Mormons are ashamed of their church. Sometimes they outright lie about their beliefs or they weasel their way out of it.

Bruce R. McConkie didn't do that. Mormon Doctrine is unapologetic and gets to the point.

Here's an example: A while back someone asked on Facebook if Mormons really believe God is named "Elohim". I responded, "Yes, they believe that God is named Elohim". A Mormon responded shortly after and said, "The name of our church is 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints', not 'The Church of Elohim'". While what they said was technically true and they didn't deny that they worship a God named Elohim, they were clearly trying to persuade someone that Mormons don't believe God is named Elohim. They were ashamed.

If you had asked Bruce R. McConkie that same question, he would have said, "Yeah we do!"

If he were a swearing man, he probably would have "!@#$% YES WE DO!"

I'm glad you pointed this out.

I was never drawn to BRM or Mormon Doctrine when I was TBM. And now I very much dislike both. But at least he owned what he said and didn't try to talk out of both sides of his mouth like current leaders.

I also feel like TBMs try to blend in with mainstream Christianity, like your Facebook friend. And they also talk out of both sides of their mouths like their leaders. "Oh we're not weird. Mormons are totally Christian." And then, "Oh we don't practice priest-craft like those other religions."

Interesting insight Doc.

[moksha]

The problem with Mormon Doctrine is that it actually contained Mormon doctrine, ... My 1976 editions says, for example: "Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as negroes.

I don't think it is a good thing to require the Church to have an albatross of hateful past speculations (masquerading as the teaching of God) hung around its neck. Seems much better to jettison those awful ideas and simply move on for the betterment of Mankind.

[Hagoth]

I don't think it is a good thing to require the Church to have an albatross of hateful past speculations (masquerading as the teaching of God) hung around its neck. Seems much better to jettison those awful ideas and simply move on for the betterment of Mankind.

I would agree if the church was willing to own up to it, grow a pair (make that 15 pairs) and offer apologies where needed, but they have made it abundantly clear how they feel about apologies. Instead they gaslight us for ever believing that they taught those things. I think they should either own their doctrine and allow people a valid reason for saying "no thanks" to the craziness, or make it clear that the prophets were wrong, that we are moving forward and leaving that crap behind not because times have changed, but because it was wrong. Either way they will lose members and tithes, which is 180 degrees antithetical to all of the goals that matter to them. I am just so damned tired of the mealy-mouthed cake-and-eat-it-too doublespeak that has replaced doctrine. But I do appreciate that Pres. Hinkley so clearly demonstrated how it works in his TV interviews and General Priesthood Meeting followup.

[deacon blues]

We have a 1958 green cover edition. In the mission field we used to call it the green dragon because it was so hard on the Catholic Church. I think the later editions toned down the anti-Catholic rhetoric.

[redjay]

I only remember the bit on forbidden sexual practices - onanism (pulling out - which confused me cos that was some ultra TBM's method of contraception) and defecation (or something like that) which when you're 13 you're like 'what the heck is that all about?'

But at least it was meat. I'm just as confused as the church - I loved the deep doctrine in mormonism, just turns out it's bat-poop crazy. On one hand I'd like a simple faith church without the expectation to believe all the quackery and pharisaical nonsense, but on the other hand I've probably got a fundamentalist streak in me - whether that was planted by indoctrination or it is naturally within me, I have no clue - but I'm not into any man pulling rank and taking my wife.

Not sure if that answers your question.