Have you ever been broadsided by a McConkie-ism?

[Snigmorder]

A McConkie-ism is something abrasive or difficult said by Bruce R. McConkie. It's his own special way of "putting it." Be it his own opinions or in doctrine.

 

The most recent time I was broadsided by a McConkie-ism was in his talk "Our relationship with the Lord" (search for it at your own risk.) In this talk he lays out the proper relationship we are to have with each member of the Godhead, and along the way explaining how the sectarians are doing it wrong.

At the time I heard it, I thought he made God and Christ sound pharisaical, over pious, untouchable, impersonal. (At the time I thought "only the Smiths get be friends with God, eh Bruce?") Needless to say, it went against my conception of things.

Nevertheless, he was right in the end in his main point. It wasn't that God and Christ were pharisaical, over pious, untouchable, impersonal.  It's that my treatment of them was too casual, their divinity reduced by my own inadequate reverence and perhaps foolish pride. 

Now I understand what he was talking about. And the fun thing is, the loving, personal, and intimate Father and Son which I envisioned before this particular McConkie-ism, is demonstrated in Scripture (obvious to everyone but Snigmorder.)

There have been other McConkie-isms. For example, I used to sneer and rant and murmur every time I opened one of his books. But I got over that, and now I admire the man and can read him and hear him without being broadsided.

 

Have you ever been broadsided by Bruce R. McConkie?

[Backroads]

No. I read a bit of him as a teenager. I thought he was old and forward, but shrugged that off as him being one of the old proper guys, which may have conveniently put things in the right perspective the wrong way. Maybe I should read him again to see if I get broadsided.

[NeuroTypical]

Heh - the brethren themselves sure felt broadsided back in the day.  

Back in my heady days of arguing with anti-mormons, we got beat over the head with so many doctrinally false things Bro. Bruce said, we all kept text files trying to clarify that "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't.  

Let's see - I think I still have it somewhere... [searching] Ah yes- here we go:

Quote

From Pres. David O. McKay’s office journal:

March 5, 1959: Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney called at my request. I asked them if they would together go over Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine” and make a list of the corrections that should be made preparatory to his sending out an addendum to all members of the Church who have purchased his book.
--------------------
Jan. 7, 1960: 10:15 to 12:45 p.m. RE: The Book--”Mormon Doctrine”. The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book “Mormon Doctrine” by Elder Bruce McConkie. These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book “Mormon Doctrine” had not been read by the reading committee, that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen states that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency. I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve. It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author. Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine. A rough draft will be submitted to us for approval.
--------------------
Jan. 7, 1960 [part of a letter addressed to David O. McKay from Marion G. Romney, dated January 28, 1959]. 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 of the following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified.
---------------------
Jan 8, 1960. The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine” recently published by Bookcraft Company must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency.
--------------------
Jan. 14, 1960: Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. Among matters discussed at this meeting were the following: Elder Mark E. Petersen’s proposed editorial on books by General Authorities. A draft of a proposed editorial for the Improvement Era, prepared by Elder Mark E. Petersen, on the subject of selecting good books, and upon the approval of the publication of books by the First Presidency, was read. After consideration it was decided that the general statement, without the reference to “Mormon Doctrine” and “Ancient America and the Book of Mormon,” which should be handled separately, would be a suitable editorial on the subject of selecting good books. Further action on the matter of publishing a statement relating to the approval of books by the First Presidency was deferred awaiting consideration of the subject by me with President Joseph Fielding Smith.
--------------------
Jan. 27, 1960: Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine.” At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith, and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine,” as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel. I then said, “Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meetingt in the Temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie’s book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors (some 1,067 of them) are corrected.” Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, “That is the best thing to do.” I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the principles as printed in his book in answer to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, “I will speak to him about that.” I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, “I will speak to him about that also.” I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise.
--------------------
Jan. 28, 1960: 8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkie’s book. Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book “Mormon Doctrine” should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Elder McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should not be republished, and said that he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning. When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to his book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, “I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can.” In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect.

10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple. At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine,” stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book not be republished; that it be not republished even in corrected form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it be not recognized as an authoritative book. I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect; but it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presicdency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative, that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it. McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it. I reported that the First Presidency had talked with Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the book, nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question has been raised as contained in the book. The Brethren unanimously approved of this. I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, “_I_ _only_ am responsible for it,” but I said “you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed.” I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion this became the consensus of the Council.

Edited July 24, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Backroads]

Good thing McConkie didn't have Twitter.

[person0]

As far back as I can remember, I have always sincerely appreciated Elder McConkie's abrasive style of speaking.  When I hear him speak I sometimes wish that more of the brethren spoke that way today.  Despite his occasional inaccuracies, I think the perceived overconfidence with which he speaks was potentially a contributing factor to his being called of the Lord.  Some people probably need(ed) it, and while I can't speak for all, I feel that we are benefited from it as we listen to and read his words even today.  It is clear from his speeches and written word that he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ!

[Fether]

I always found his words refreshingly simple andbtothe point  he definitely knew the deepest doctrines behind the most basic principles and that helped him boldly say what was what without flinching:

[person0]

[Vort]

I'm much the same as Snig. I spent my youth rolling my eyes at McConkie and inwardly sneering at much of what he had to say. Because, you know, there was near-universal consensus by top scientists the cool kids the spiritual Illuminati the self-appointed Goodthinkers those who all pretty much agreed with each other The Smart People that McConkie was wrong. My wall of certitude developed fatal structural breaches on my mission; by the time I reached 25, it lay strewed about me in ruins.

If I'm honest with myself, I will admit that even today, I'm not a big fan of how his teachings often came across, which was as condescending lectures. But when I actually listen to a talk and try to isolate which parts cause offense, it's a much harder thing. I find very little to argue with. What, McConkie thought that it was his duty as an apostle to teach and my duty as not-an-apostle to listen and learn? Well...okay, I guess he was really correct about that. McConkie believed that if I didn't agree with this or that thing an apostle taught, I should keep my mouth shut? Well...yep, I guess that's actually true. McConkie insisted that the Church functioned as a top-down unit, where the leaders explain God's will and the followers, you know, follow? Turns out that's pretty hard to argue against.

[The Folk Prophet]

Of the 5+ billion or so things Bruce R. McConkie said I think a grand total of 2 -- let's call it 3 for good measure -- turned out to be mistaken. And, I might add, most of those statements were made decades before he was an apostle.

[Backroads]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of the 5+ billion or so things Bruce R. McConkie said I think a grand total of 2 -- let's call it 3 for good measure -- turned out to be mistaken. And, I might add, most of those statements were made decades before he was an apostle.

This is true. His false doctrine, as we might call it in hindsight, wasn't so different from the general perspective of his time. Again, not even a handful of statements.

 

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

McConkie thought that it was his duty as an apostle to teach and my duty as not-an-apostle to listen and learn? Well...okay, I guess he was really correct about that. McConkie believed that if I didn't agree with this or that thing an apostle taught, I should keep my mouth shut?

Are you referring to the Eugene England incident? I read Bruce's letter and some of what Eugene England was putting out, and I think Bruce was justified. I could be wrong, but that's what I made of it.

[Guest]

I never got to read the first edition of Mormon Doctrine.  I grew up with the 2nd edition.  I never found anything wrong with it.  

On my mission several other missionaries noted that I kept it with the standard Missionary Reference Library.  And they felt it important to warn me that missionaries were not to read that book.  I asked why.  They couldn't tell me.

One district leader said in passing that books like that should never be published.  He also thought that "If You Could Hie to Kolob" should be removed from the hymnal.  Again, I asked why.  He said that M.D. had too many errors and false doctrines in it.  Mind you, he was the same age as I was.  He didn't have access to the first edition either.

I challenged him on it asking,"What false doctrines are in it?"  He proceeded to blow me off.

But I don't think that is really the subject of the OP.  Snig was talking about his (ahem) prickly personality rather than the truth or not of the doctrines he spoke.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But when I actually listen to a talk and try to isolate which parts cause offense, it's a much harder thing. I find very little to argue with.

Well, most/all of the original 1067 issues noted by Elder Mark E. Petersen, affecting 776 pages of the original printing, were made in later printings.  For decades, you go buy a copy of Mormon Doctrine, you get the 'fixed' version.  I'm thinking that most readers have never seen the original, never been exposed to the original thousand problems. (Unless you liked arguing with critics in the '90's and '00's, then you heard them every other thread.)

I have a list of 36 specific issues in 4 broad categories from Pres McKay's office journal, but I don't really see any reason to post it.  Anyone who only has a first edition and really really wants to know can find the list on teh interwebs I'm sure.  

Edited July 24, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(Unless you liked arguing with critics in the '90's and '00's, then you heard them every other thread.)

Well, you see, we had to go on missions without the internet.  You kids these days have it so easy...

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, most/all of the original 1067 issues noted by Elder Mark E. Petersen, affecting 776 pages of the original printing, were made in later printings.  For decades, you go buy a copy of Mormon Doctrine, you get the 'fixed' version.  I'm thinking that most readers have never seen the original, never been exposed to the original thousand problems. (Unless you liked arguing with critics in the '90's and '00's, then you heard them every other thread.)

I have a list of 36 specific issues in 4 broad categories from Pres McKay's office journal, but I don't really see any reason to post it.  Anyone who only has a first edition and really really wants to know can find the list on teh interwebs I'm sure.  

My wife's grandmother has a first edition. Fun times over there . . .

I suspect a lot of the 1067 "errors" in MD are rather like the three-to-five thousand "corrections" to the BoM since 1830; with the vast majority being of a rather pedantic nature and relatively few having major substance.

That said--it certainly doesn't hurt to remember that Mormon Doctrine isn't always.  I received a copy of the 2nd edition in my teens; and for me the first hint that it might be less-than-perfect came during a youth temple trip.  I brought along for a little light reading in the temple chapel while I was waiting for my turn for baptisms; and was flummoxed when the kindly woman at the desk said "scriptures only, brother".

Edited July 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I just did a jaunt through the bloggernacle and found some interesting differences in tone of the comments on each site regarding Mormon Doctrine.

https://askgramps.org/church-allow-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine-published/

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2009/03/15/why-mormon-doctrine-is-not-mormon-doctrine/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/46729-defending-mormon-doctrine-by-bruce-r-mcconkie/

I also looked at a fairly famous anti-Mormon site made up of mostly former Mormons.  I think some can guess which site that is and the tenor of the thread regarding this topic.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Guest

[seashmore]

I was born four months after he passed. My first McConkie exposure was in my early 20s, when we blended hymns into his final address for our Easter Sunday School. Hard to not love him after that intro. 

I've never read Mormon Doctrine, but it's not my style anyway. 

[Mike]

I remember an experience I had watching Elder McConkie when he was the visiting General Authority at a Stake Conference in my missionary area in Brazil. Since he didn't speak Portuguese he utilized the help of a local member to translate to the audience, and as many of us have typically observed speakers do in such a setting he would speak, pause for the translator, and then continue. During his talk on Charity he quoted 1 Corinthians 13:1 and after he finished saying, "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," he looked at the translator who paused longer than normal. The poor man looked back at Elder McConkie and then at the audience for mere seconds but I could see that he couldn't think of how the verse read in Portuguese or how to translate the "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal". What caught me off-guard was the manner that Elder McConkie "appeared" to become annoyed as he repeated the words more than once and the translator's countenance began to redden. Happily, a member in the audience stood up and handed a copy of the scripture in the native language for the translator to read. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Mike

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I just did a jaunt through the bloggernacle and found some interesting differences in tone of the comments on each site regarding Mormon Doctrine.

https://askgramps.org/church-allow-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine-published/

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2009/03/15/why-mormon-doctrine-is-not-mormon-doctrine/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/46729-defending-mormon-doctrine-by-bruce-r-mcconkie/

I also looked at a fairly famous anti-Mormon site made up of mostly former Mormons.  I think some can guess which site that is and the tenor of the thread regarding this topic.

That Mormon Matters post might contain an error. It says: Despite the fact that David O. McKay declared the book not be republished, Bruce R. McConkie published it anyway six years later when the Prophet was in poor health.

This is incorrect according to Bruce's "biographer." I'm paraphrasing here, he said Spencer Kimball was assigned to Bruce as a "mentor" to assist with changing the book for republication. 

http://www.ebornbooks.com/blog/2011/04/07/30/

Edited July 24, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

That Mormon Matters post might contain an error. It says: Despite the fact that David O. McKay declared the book not be republished, Bruce R. McConkie published it anyway six years later when the Prophet was in poor health.

This is incorrect according to Bruce's "biographer." I'm paraphrasing here, he said Spencer Kimball was assigned to Bruce as a "mentor" to assist with changing the book for republication. 

http://www.ebornbooks.com/blog/2011/04/07/30/

What?! Someone on Mormon Matters made a mistake, or even -- Heaven forfend! -- lied about something? Unheard of!

[Snigmorder]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I remember an experience I had watching Elder McConkie when he was the visiting General Authority at a Stake Conference in my missionary area in Brazil. Since he didn't speak Portuguese he utilized the help of a local member to translate to the audience, and as many of us have typically observed speakers do in such a setting he would speak, pause for the translator, and then continue. During his talk on Charity he quoted 1 Corinthians 13:1 and after he finished saying, "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," he looked at the translator who paused longer than normal. The poor man looked back at Elder McConkie and then at the audience for mere seconds but I could see that he couldn't think of how the verse read in Portuguese or how to translate the "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal". What caught me off-guard was the manner that Elder McConkie "appeared" to become annoyed as he repeated the words more than once and the translator's countenance began to redden. Happily, a member in the audience stood up and handed a copy of the scripture in the native language for the translator to read. 

That reminds me of a story I read on an anti-Mormon website (I think that's where I read it.) it was an anecdote, I have no idea if it's true.

I'll paraphrase: Bruce was giving a talk at some mission somewhere. There was a missionary and his companion, the companion couldn't speak or understand English very well, so the missionary had to whisper the translation into his companion's ear.

Bruce saw this and had the missionary brought to the mission president's office and there in front of the mission president, asked the missionary something to the effect of: "so you think you know enough that you can ignore an apostle?" And the missionary replies "Oh, no sir. I was translating for my companion." Bruce says "I was greatly mistaken, you have my apologies. I hope you can forgive me." And then hugged the missionary. Apparently the missionary forgive him.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Snigmorder]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

What?! Someone on Mormon Matters made a mistake, or even -- Heaven forfend! -- lied about something? Unheard of!

I don't know anything about mormon matters. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

That reminds me of a story I read on an anti-Mormon website (I think that's where I read it.) it was an anecdote, I have no idea if it's true.

I'll paraphrase: Bruce was giving a talk at some mission somewhere. There was a missionary and his companion, the companion couldn't speak or understand English very well, so the missionary had to whisper the translation into his companion's ear.

Bruce saw this and had the missionary brought to the mission president's office and there in front of the mission president, asked of the missionary something to the effect of: "so you think you know enough that you can ignore an apostle?" And the missionary replies "Oh, no sir. I was translating for my companion." Bruce says "I was greatly mistaken, you have my apologies. I hope you can forgive me." And then hugged the missionary. Apparently the missionary forgive him.

 Well whether mine comes across an anecdote or a story it is true and you'll not find it on an anti-Mormon website, haha. If yours really was on an anti-Mormon website it strikes me as unexpected and as praising Elder McConkie for humility. 

One thing I took from what I observed at the Stake Conference with Elder McConkie was a desire for the opportunities to speak with a translator and to translate for a speaker. Months afterward I did get the opportunity to translate for Elder Pinegar at a District Conference. It began with my feeling apprehensive when he invited me, but less than a minute in to his talk it became a pleasing and uplifting experience. 

[Snigmorder]

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

 Well whether mine comes across an anecdote or a story it is true and you'll not find it on an anti-Mormon website, haha. If yours really was on an anti-Mormon website it strikes me as unexpected and as praising Elder McConkie for humility. 

One thing I took from what I observed at the Stake Conference with Elder McConkie was a desire for the opportunities to speak with a translator and to translate for a speaker. Months afterward I did get the opportunity to translate for Elder Pinegar at a District Conference. It began with my feeling apprehensive when he invited me, but less than a minute in to his talk it became a pleasing and uplifting experience. 

It was in a slander thread against Bruce and someone had a contrary opinion (the story.)

You translate? What language?

[Snigmorder]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He also thought that "If You Could Hie to Kolob" should be removed from the hymnal.

If his complaint was with the phrase "where gods began to be" I would ask him to explain where God our Father acquired his anthropomorphic shape if it wasn't inherited.