Talk:Bruce R. McConkie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is there a reason this article still is labeled as a stub? I think its looking pretty rock awesome. Epachamo 07:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If your are truly interested in knowledge on this subject read it; then go to [1]. Then decide for yourself the truth. God has said that if ye seek knowledge to ask of him( not me or any author).
If God had said that, why would you urge someone to go read what some *author* has written at Besides, the last time I checked the Doctrine and Covenants it still said, "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me." D&C 9:7. Perhaps you should "seek . . . out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith . . . ." D&C 109:7. Turtle.

Source material on reaction to Mormon Doctrine[edit]

I have edited the "Doctrinal Expositor" section to contain a neutral tone. To claim sources used by his son and biographer are "dubious" is showing a bias. To claim he published his book, Mormon Doctrine, despite being told not to is showing bias. As Joseph Fielding McConkie pointed out, his father indeed was asked not to re-publish Mormon Doctrine in 1960, but was given permission to publish a second edition in 1966. To ignore this fact shows bias. Men are not called to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles who openly disregard counsel from the First Presidency. To presume this was the case is dubious. My edits in no fashion constitute "vandalism." --Dan Forward 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that "dubious" is not fair, but the *claims* by Joseph Fielding McConkie do not rise to the level of "facts." The "fact" is you do not know why BRMc was called to the "Twelve" and the fact of his calling does not prove anything about BRMc, his motives, or whether he had permission to publish. Jesse Gause was "called" to the First Presidency. So was Sidney Rigdon. Joseph Fielding McConkie has waited decades to make this claim, and should make the "notes" available to support his claims. Deathbed defenses of one's father are not the sort of thing that should be treated as "facts" in this forum, which is not a place to promote faith but facts. Jared
Thank you, Jared, for your insight. I have reworded the sentence in the form of a fact, which is that Elder McConkie's call to the Twelve is an evidence that his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, told the truth in his biography when he said President David O. McKay approved publishing the second edition of Mormon Doctrine. (See footnote 3.) I just do not want the article to be one-sided in its presentation. Let's present all evidence in a neutral tone and let the reader decide for themselves whether it is sufficient to warrant a conclusion. The former version drew a conclusion that Elder McConkie definitely acted in defiance of the First Presidency.
The word "supposedly" was not in the original quote, so I removed it. It also reflected a bias.
As a heads up, I would like to add something about Elder McConkie's work on the 1981 publication of the scriptures and his tenure as a mission president in Australia. --Dan Forward 06:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made many edits today, touching nearly every section. My changes were mostly formatting and links. The "Doctrinal Expositor" section was modified most. I hope I have successfully preserved the flavor of the previous version while presenting it in a more factual, fair, NPOV manner. I believe there is much more to be said about Elder McConkie's life and teachings. I hope others will step up to the challenge. --Dan Forward 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have refined your edits, to some extent, in that I believe your sympathy for the son's defense of the father and a presumption that God acts through the Mormon heirarchy was evident in your text. See what you think. Jared
Thanks, Jared. It is much better than it was before, but there still seems to be an argumentative tone about it, as if two sides were desperately trying to prove a point. I would like to see it edited in such a fashion that all known, documented facts are stated, good or bad in an impassionate tone.
I will make no qualms about my affinity for Elder McConkie and that may be reflected in my edits. I really do try to be neutral as I am most interested in the communication of truth. I believe few greater men, if any, have walked the earth than the prophets and apostles God has called. But I also believe that the unembellished facts can speak for themselves. It is an undisputed fact that President McKay asked Elder McConkie not to reprint Mormon Doctrine in 1960. But it is also very likely that he was given permission to print a revised edition six years later. These ideas are not mutually exclusive and there is strong evidence (not proof) to suggest it. People are excommunicated for publishing after being counseled by priesthood authorities not to do so; they are not called to the Twelve. --Dan Forward 07:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It is "strong evidence" only to the believer. One who is not convinced by supernatural means of the truth of Mormonism can look at the same facts and see the triumph of the super fundamentalist Smith familiy (Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding McConkie) over the more liberal and tolerant McKay faction, and Elder McConkie being rewarded for his role in that struggle. I have not made that arguement in the article and you should refrain from giving voice to the logic of BRMc's son, which starts from the premise that the LDS Church authorities are guided by God rather than their polictical, economic, idealogical, or sexual preferences and prejucices. Therefore, I took out the block quote form JFMcC and let the facts stand. Jared

Putting this here temporarily as a reference Should belong on wikisource or something not wikipedia. Trödel|talk 12:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original poster introduced these with: "The following are primary documents relating to the reactions of the First Presidency of the LDS church to the publication of Mormon Doctrine."

NOTE: These quotes were copied wholesale from Steve Benson's web site, typos and all. He claims to have physical copies of the documents in his possession. I suggest that they be removed from this discussion page and be replaced with a link to the original site. It is likely a copyright violation to have them here. --Dan Forward 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I am also a little disappointed that while combing through the quotes for typos so that you could claim that the page was "copied wholesalve from Steve Benson's" site, you did not notice on the same page that the person stated that the pages had been copied with the permission of the Church Archivist. Do you, therefore, have any reason at all to think the pages are in violation of copyright if posted here?
I took that to mean that Steve Benson received permission from the Church Archivist to make a copy of the originals, not that he had permission from the Church Archivist to publish them on the web. --Dan Forward 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have the originals in my possesion. Also, I question whether linking to Steve Benson's website is appropriate -- it says to Mormons "the idea the BRMc published a book he should not have is heterodox" when in fact it was the view of David O. McKay (the sole person on earth at the time who had the authority, in orthodox Mormon terms to speak for God). I am going to suggest that we delete the link since it is to a secondary source when the primary sources are available and quoted verbatim. Jared
Thanks, Jared for fixing the quoted documents.
Steve Benson claimed to have manually typed it all in on I pointed out a typo on this page and then noticed the same typo on his site. They both use the identical explanation for a missing line ("one line of words partially cut off on bottom of the photocopied page of journal"). I saw the documents on his site many years ago. I therefore concluded the content on this page was a direct copy and paste job and we might be better served with a link to the source.
It seems another site may have beaten Steven Benson to the punch. A copy of the now defunct web site for the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days claims to have photocopies of the same documents. They are, however, not photocopies. They are HTML laid out to look like photocopies, perhaps by an OCR program. Interestingly, they preserve a stamp that reads, "Copies may be made only by permission of the Church Archivist. Literary property rights are reserved by the Historical department The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I may be wrong, but I believe this means we cannot maintain a wholesale copy of the documents here. I will attempt to contact the Historical department of the Church for clarification. --Dan Forward 07:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"I Believe in Christ"[edit]

I think that the lyrics to "I Believe in Christ" are virtual doggrel. The rhyme scheme grates on the ear like just what it is -- the product of a subsidized lawyer with a thesarus at his elbow searching for immortality in the face of his pending death.

I think you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. McConkie first read that poem in 1972, before he was even a member of the Quorum of Twelve and thirteen years before his death. Your ignorance is astounding (though humorous).

Its silly, repetitive use of inverted sentence order gives it the ring of Yoda at Fast and Testmony Meeting: "My feet he plants on gospel sod;" "That ye, my friends, with God may be." The truth is that if any run-of-the-mill lay member had submitted this stilted, turgid, leaden abomination for inclusion in the Hymnal, the submission would have found its way to the recycle bin faster than "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality"

And this has, what, exactly, to do with the article? Poetry works at many levels. McConkie was no Keats; but then, Keats was no McConkie. Many Latter-day Saints accept McConkie's poetry, not because they think it's particularly good, but because it teaches important truths.

It's inclusion in the Hymnal is a testament, not to the "talent" of BRMc, but to the sycophancy that runs rampant in the Church Office Building. User:TurtleTurtle

You're entitled to your opinions. But that's just what it is. As far as I can tell, "I Believe in Christ" is universally loved by members of the church. It is one of the hymns in most member's repertoire. It is one of the things people remember Elder McConkie for. Jgardner 06:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Plus artistic merit is very subjective. Trödel|talk 14:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Turtle, "it's" is a contraction meaning "it is". The word for which you are desperately yet fruitlessly searching is "its".
While you are savoring my mistake (and yes, it is a mistake -- I am familar with the genitive case for the singular indefinite pronoun, but simply mistyped), I will do you the courtesy of suggesting that your ungracious means of correcting me would be much more appropriate if YOU: (1) did incorrectly put quotation marks inside of periods (".); (2) did not begin sentences with "And"; and (3) did not use a semicolon incorrectly before a conjunction (Keats; but). Maybe while you are brushing up on your freshman philosophy, you can work on your high school punctuation rules, too. Turtle
I am a member of the church. I go to church every Sunday. Every time we have to sing this "hymn" I wince with actual acute physical pain at this loathesomely amateurish "lyric."
Then you should visit a neurologist and a psychiatrist as soon as possible, telling them that song lyrics are causing you physical pain! Quickly! Go now! Don't wait another day!
Do you Mormons

"You" Mormons? I thought that you were "a member of the church [sic]".

really want to stake out the position that truth and beauty is subjective? User:TurtleTurtle
Truth is subjective until we reach ground truth. Go take a freshman-level philosophy class. As for beauty — if you can't figure out on your own that beauty is subjectively judged, then you have no business making changes to articles on Wikipedia.

I edited out the statements that he was "very popular" as I don't know what basis there could be for that.

Hmmmm. popularity? I know it's just so, so hard for you to believe it of your pet whipping boy, but a great many Latter-day Saints loved, respected, and revered the man.

I also deleted the reference to "I Believe in Christ" as being his most important contributions to Mormon Culture. Is there evidence for that position?

I don't know why you would think that he wasn't very popular - he died when I was in my mid-teens, and he was an oft-quoted GA and seemed popular to me. Similar to Maxwell today, though not as eloquent as Maxwell, IMHO: "Our love may not always be reciprocated, or even appreciated, but love is never wasted." One of my favorites. Trödel|talk 03:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't dispute that he had appeal, I just don't think "very popular" is supportable. There are plenty of believing Mormons who remember Elder McConkie for quotes like these, too:
Certainly the caste systems in communist countries and in India, for instance, are man made and are not based on true principles. “However, in a broad sense, caste have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.
or this:
Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others....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 the 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; 12:22) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abraham 1:20-27) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. ...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence....The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from.

Both from the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie was not popular among Mormons who are in interracial marriages, believed that negroes should hold the priesthood, believe that the Catholic Church is not the Anti-Christ, believe that natural selection is not of the devil, etc. Brother McConkie was often wrong, but never in doubt -- this is not a universally endearing quality.

It should be noted that the posts against the poem/hymn by those who claim to be LDS represent a tiny minority and are made by someone whose espoused ideals conflict with LDS teachings. He wrote the poem when he was a health 57, far from "impending death" as TurtleTurtle claims. This is one of the many inaccurate details in that user's post above. Also, McConkie recanted many of his statements of opinion from the 1st edition, including his comments quoted above. The gospel preaches repentance and forgiveness. Thus, the above quotes cannot be accurately used to discuss opinions of him by fellow "believing Mormons." Also, some of your claims about the book in the last paragraph above are distorted. Additionally, discussion on the book should be in its own section above, not under this section which is on the poem/hymn that he wrote.
The author is LDS. Period. Wikipedia does not exist to support "LDS ideals." I will let the previous post stand so that you can point out some more of the "many inaccurate details" it contains. (It is in this section to justify deletion of the claim that BRMc is "very popular.") While you are at it, please note the exact form of Elder McConkie's "recantation":
"I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to our taking the priesthood to those of all nations and races. "He (meaning Jesus Christ, who is the Lord God) inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black or white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33)"
"These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations. Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages has expanded. Many of us never imagined or supposed that they had the extensive and broad meaning that they do have."
"We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves. "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
"We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more."
"It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

There you have it -- not a time form BRMc to apolgize for his racism -- a time for him TO CALL HIS CRITICS TO REPENT. That, friends, is chutzpah! Does it not bother you, as an "espouser of LDS ideals" that a General Authority can speak with such a nakedly authoritarian tone and then just announce "never mind"? What else should he have covered with a "never mind"? The point of the *discussion* above is to highlight that McConkie's message and tone was rife with overwrought, arrogant authoritarianism that he (with no apparent sense of irony) used in the face clear of prohibiton from the *authorities* he was supposed to be honoring.

== TurtleTurtle: Go Away ==Bold textIf you want to know the truth read this; then when the crazy ramblings are through go to [2] and browse the faq and see how you really feel. Don't take me as authority or this other guy. Make up your own mind!!! If you loathe the guy so much, why on earth are you wasting your time here? Just go away and ignore the existence of the Bruce McConkie page. No one will see it except Mormons, anyway.

If you must be anal-retentive about and throw a hissy fit over something, pick a target other than a relatively minor LDS Church leader who has been dead for twenty years.

That is how you deal with me, huh? Call me "anal retentive" and tell me to "go away." That is very Christian of you.
To answer your question, you can consider me the voice of "one crying in the wilderness" if that makes you feel better. I write about BRMc because week after week I hear my brothers and sisters quote from BRMc's dogmatic, ill informed, exagerated writings as though they were the word of God. That is wrong. I have studied his life extensively and think that the sources of his authority should be questioned, deeply.
Now, let me suggest to you that this forum is no place for you to defend your faith or to censor documented realities about BRMc, whom you simultaenously wish to hold up as Light to the World and to minimize as just a guy who died 20 years ago. If the facts that I present about BRMc make you uncomfortable, I suggest that you lay your facts side by side with mine.
I might add that I find it pin headed for you to (1) demand sources for my "supposed quotes" (2) and then call it mere "carping about Mormon Doctrine" when I do supply exact references for the quotes. You then delete the quotations that I have so thoroughly documented.
You also had the audacity to take the following actions: (1) you deleted verbatim quotations from the daily diary of "prophet, seer, and revelator" David O. McKay that demonstrate that the *only* reason that BRMc was not *publicly* told to renounce "Mormon Doctrine" was to spare him public humiiation; (2) then you state that Bruce R. McConkie was never "publicly" corrected, as though that validated "Mormon Doctrine." That is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that should make you pause next time you are sitting in a temple recommend interview and the Bishop asks you if you are "honest in all your dealings with your fellow man." (See, I know all about you.) Shame on you.

Let me suggest that you are interested in censoring information that does not please you.
Keep your censorship tendencies away from this forum.

Please sign comments[edit]

I'm trying to monitor this page; however, it's difficult to follow because nobody is signing their comments. The easiest way to do this is to follow your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. When you save the page, your tildes will automatically be converted into your signature. Thanks. COGDEN 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Did McConkie Have the Power to Announce Church Doctrine and Require That All Others "Echo or Remain Silent"?[edit]

Here is what Ezra Taft Benson had to say on the subject:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 132:7] the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
“There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”
Then in section 21 verses 4–6 [D&C 21:4–6], the Lord states:
“Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0

Here is what J. Ruben Clark, apostle and member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church had to say on the subject:

“Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative” J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are Church Leader’s Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.

I have, therefore, striken the sentence that justified McConkie's statement that it was his province to announce doctrine and the duty of the member to echo him or remain silent. If there is actual justification for the view that McConkie was entitled to announce doctrine unilaterally and that members were then to "echo" what he said, please provide it.


Here is what Jesus had to say about His twelve: "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you and to be your servants" (3 Nephi 12:1).

An apostle has the right and duty to expound doctrine and we, as believers in Christ and His servants, have a right to receive confirmation through the Holy Ghost. Please be careful as you attempt to identify a mote in Elder McConkie's eye that you do not have a beam obstructing your own vision. No one is perfect but God, but it is most wise to give ample regard to those whom God chooses as His special witnesses. Once, when asked by one of his children how he distinguished between inspired counsel and the personal opinions of the Twelve, Elder McConkie replied, "I don't." Such was the faith of Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Dan Forward 11:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, your quote does not come close to establishing that the Twelve have power to "declare doctrine" -- it says that it is "blessed to listen to them." There is a difference. How do you answer my clear demonstration that only the Prophet has the keys to declare doctrine? Other than announcing your conclusion without authority, as you do in the following sentence?~ Jared ~ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You are right, Jared. The role of an apostle is not to declare new doctrine, but to expound previously-revealed truths. Elder McConkie was not the originator of new doctrine. He expounded upon revealed truth. He was a faithful, untiring servant of God. As a special witness of Christ, we do well to echo his teachings as he so succinctly stated. In other words, we will be blessed if we give heed to his words.
After reading some criticisms of Mormon Doctrine on the Internet, which is now linked to this article, I asked Elder McConkie's son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, about the matter. His response was enlightening. He answered with a question, "Do you think he would have been called to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles if the publishing of Mormon Doctrine had met with disapproval from the First Presidency and members of the Twelve?" When all is said and done, the only persons with priesthood authority to denounce the publishing of the book chose not to. On the contrary, he was called to a position of greater authority.
As for me, I do not presume to become a judge of those God has seen fit to call to such a position. I feel great comfort in echoing their words. --Dan Forward 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course,you are quick to point out the mote in *my* eye. ~ Jared ~ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, this is a self serving declaration by BRMc -- he is asserting his own power, as he liked to do. It is like me saying "I don't distinguish between doctrine and postings on Wikipedia." ~ Jared ~ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems Elder McConkie was drinking buttermilk, which he disliked, at the urging of other members of the Twelve. That would seem to be a matter of personal opinion, not inspiration, and it prompted the question from his children. His answer was not self-serving; it reflected his own personal faith in observing the words of the Lord's anointed and it was given only to his children. I use this example to extrapolate that it is not generally fruitful to determine whether counsel from the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles is a reflection of God's will or their own personal opinion. When in doubt, show faith. Apply the teaching and determine from experience whether it brings greater joy. Jesus taught, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17). This is what you do when you already have a basic testimony from God that the restored gospel is true. --Dan Forward 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Dan, it is obvious that you want only to proseletize. I will not answer your posts, but let others evaluate whether you are basing your conclusions on the historical docmuments or "personal revelation." Jared

Different Editions[edit]

Forgive me if this was already discussed. I reviewed the discussion and I am little lost. I searched the page for the word 'edition' and I did not see an answer. The article makes no mention of different editions of the book Mormon Doctrine. The first edition books sell for about $40 on amazon and the second edition for about $10. I am told that there are 'doctrinal' (no pun intended) differences between the two. Anon012345 09:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally think any focus on the different versions and his "Mormon doctrine" book is overblown in this article and its talk page. That book to me is not the thing he will be remembered for in the long-term. It was the first of its kind and led to the current Bible dictionary and current edition of the LDS version of the Standard Works. His work on the scripture committee, his hymns, his speeches and his involvement in the priesthood revelation to me are what he will be remmeberd for long-term.
The cost difference is because of the Anti-Mormon market. I am unaware of LDS collectors who seriously buy the first edition book - but rather, am aware of dozens of exmormon or Anti-mormon activists who buy the book as a way to justify changes in "church doctine." It is unfortunate that so many people lump all the cultural beliefs, folk doctrine and other practices that are shared in Mormon Doctrine as officially representing LDS doctrine. It doesn't. That is why the book isn't called LDS doctrine, but lives in the more cultural term "Mormon Doctrine."
There are a number of changes that he was encouraged to make in his book, resulting in a second edition - from saying the the Catholic Church was the church of the devil, to trying to pinpoint the "why" behind the priesthood ban, etc. Much of it was purely speculative, although popularly believed among mormons in general (which is unfortunate, but normal). Most of the book is not doctrinal, but rather definitional or terminology nuances, IMHO.
I don't think this needs to be focused on, but of course should be included in the article in some way. -Visorstuff 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will take your word for it on the Anti-Mormon market. I was thinking it was the academic market, like reading Mein Kampf doesn't make a person Anti-Semitic. I noticed that if a person is looking to justify changes in “church doctrine” they only have to go to wikipedia category Latter Day Saint doctrines. Though the category has many interesting articles, I did not notice an article referencing a specific document published by the LDS churching saying this here is (or was) LDS Doctrine. Is there such a document? Anon012345 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent question. Following the teaching example of Joseph Smith, Jr. the LDS church teaches "correct principles" moreso than they do clarify doctrines. You may want to read Priesthood Correlation Program. One example of what I'm meaning is that many Church members beliefs is the example I used at Dallin H. Oaks about "becoming gods." It was never an official doctrine, and you'll only find reference to it in a couple of correlated materials. Even President Hinckley when asked about man's potential to be Gods of other planets, said:

I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don 't think others know a lot about it. (Time, August 4, 1997 page 56)

He was criticized by Anti-Mormons and questioned by Church members for this statement, but it is true. What he is saying is that since the Church correlation program, this "doctrine" or "belief" has not been emphasized, as it is not found in church canon, and no evidence of this if found in revelation. If it is not in the Standard Works, it is not doctrinal. No prophet to me knowledge has taught what becoming "gods" meant aside from the continuation of the family (from D&C 132) and recieving all that God has (which is Biblical). The idea that temple-worthy church members get to have planets with multiple moons and walking trees under their creation is not doctrinally sound. It is not that the doctrine has changed, it is that is was misunderstood by other teachers of the gospel. Other controversial "dcotrines" such as Blood Atonement, or Adam-God theory are highly questioned as to the precise meaning of the teaching and many question why it was taught over the pulpit when it was not clarfied as doctrine in doctrinal clarification meetings where they were discussed. A prophet may have an opinion that he thinks is true, but is not doctrinal - the church has just gotten better about making sure that the two are better seperated. Again, not that church doctrines have changed, (they may) but they are taught more purely. The policies definitely have changed multiple times, but doctrines are supposed to remain constant unless changed by revelation (hence McConkie's statement about being mistaken on the policy against other races). Another example is polygamy. Many believe that this is still a church doctine and practice that it will come back. However, according to the manifesto and OD-1, anything taught about it after the manifesto is speculatory. As a church leader, I've stopped discussions about polygamy at Church, as "when any Elder of the Church uses language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he should be promptly reproved." It may still be a church doctrine, it may not. But as members of the church the policy is that we don't teach anything about it, and disussions about it are purely speculatory. Until a similar policy change or revelation is recieved we are left to guess.

I hope this helps a bit with seemingly (real or perceived) doctrinal changes, policy changes, and the teaching of principles, practices and eternal laws. They are different (and importantly so) in the LDS Church. I haven't even started a discussion about other Latter Day Saint movement sects that split of because of doctrinal differences, policy nuances, or the like. -Visorstuff 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

GREAT! So I am free to interupt the Standard Works as I wish and can go to Heaven. Mormon's who teach that I have to receive the Mormon Endowment, go on a Mormon Mission, go to church every sunday, be 100% obient to the mormon prophet, and pay tithing to the Mormon church are corrupting teaching their personal believes as doctrine. Anon012345 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha - the entry made me laugh! I do love your sense of humor. However, entries, one, four and five are covered in the D&C - some in different terminology, and item two is covered off in baptisimal covenants found in multiple scriptural locations - you have to share the gospel with others (not ness. a mormon mission). And item three is covered in item four. If it's in the SW (and current LDS church leaders teachings, per item four), its covered and binding. But don't worry, you have to be blessed with a testimony and in any case, we'll make sure you are taken care of one way or another... :^) -Visorstuff 18:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Careful. Now you are teaching your own Interpretations of the SW as doctrine. Anon012345 20:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hehe - not at all - they are very clear on those points. Thanks for the good conversation - this has been fun. Hope I've answered rather than confused or seemed to be an apologist (which I am not). I guess that's why we study the scriptures - they are supposed to be the words of God, and he doesn't interject the opinions and error that we humans do. -Visorstuff 22:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"they are very clear on those points" Please provided me with the canonized document that makes these points very clear. I personally know non-LDS Mormons who say your interpretations are not very clear. I can think of at 3 distinct religions that believe in the same SW, but with different interpretations. Community of Christ, LDS Mormons, Fundamentalist. You see, the assertion that the doctrine has not change because the LDS religion is doctrine-less (that is only the cannon is doctrine) is a cop out. Anon012345 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa - hold on, and I've thought this whole time you were jesting with me. I am not an apologist, so I do not defend or try to convince you of the truth or non-truth of the LDS church or LDS movement on the Wikipedia, instead, I try to explain what is believed. Obviously, from your comments above, you didn't read my suggested articles about correlation. It would have answered your question/comment directly above. Second, I've consistently said that doctrines can change, just that the ones that we've discussed above have not. I am not giving a "cop-out" as (1) I am not defending and (2) correlated material states this very plainly and (3) this is standard teaching in the LDS church. If you've heard something different, I'm sorry and I'd invite you to investigate the church further - and take a look at correlated material.

Second, the standard works are different in the three sects that you mention. LDS church believes in the pearl of great price, which is missing in the other two sects, and the Community of Christ's D&C has a hundred additional sections than the LDS version. For example, the COC beliefs about temple worship differ, as they do not accept some sections included in the LDS version.

D&C 2, 124, 127, 128, 138 all speak of the neccessity of temples and the work done therein in the salvation of both the church, it's members and the human family. D&C 1, 84, Matt 10, John 13, D&C 39, 112, 124 all talk about the neccessity of following and/or receiving the prophets/servants of the Lords/first presidency's counsel as it it were from the Lord. D&C 64, 85, 119 and more discuss tithing as a binding law to church members that they must obey to receive exaltation. 1 Cor 9, D&C 18, 20, Moroni 6, Mosiah 18 and another section (that I can't recall right now that says you receive forgiveness of your sins when you preach the gospel) all teach about the neccessity of preaching the gospel in salvation. Men will be held accountable for the souls they might have saved by preaching the gospel. These passages are clear to your particular "doctrinal" concerns above.

Now I'm definitely not going to defend anything here. This is not the point of wikipedia. There are anti and apologist forums elsewhere that do this much better or worse than I. However, I'd encourage you to read the articles/passages, etc that I suggested before asking another question that has already been answered here. For example, had you read correlation, you would realize that anything copyrighted by the corporation of the president of the church (and now intellectual reserve) is considered doctrinally sound (so there is your list of what is doctrine and what is not). Yes doctrines can change, but your examples have not. This is from the LDS point of view, (since BRMcConkie was a LDS apostle) not from the wider Latter Day Saint movement. IF you want to go there, feel free to take that discussion to my talk page. Please don't ask about the LDS church and an LDS "doctrinal" work and then change mid-stream to Mormonism in general. Your confusion between the two shows a certain level of naivity (no offense meant) as to what you are talking about. If you truly are concerned about it, I'm glad to answer your questions, but please specify what you want to learn about - either the broader movement or the church. Moving your questioning around like you did makes this discussion thread look random, rather than contributing to the greater good of Wikipedia. And it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about, when I think you do. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 07:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"For example, had you read correlation, you would realize that anything copyrighted by the corporation of the president of the church (and now intellectual reserve) is considered doctrinally sound (so there is your list of what is doctrine and what is not)."
I did read Priesthood Correlation Program. I have just finished laborious reading it out load in case a missed something. I did searches on copyrighted, copy right, etc, and I can’t seem to find what it is you a talking about.
"Please don't ask about the LDS church and an LDS "doctrinal" work and then change mid-stream to Mormonism in general. Your confusion between the two shows a certain level of naivity (no offense meant) as to what you are talking about."
You are the one that did that.
"Moving your questioning around like you did makes this discussion thread look random, rather than contributing to the greater good of Wikipedia."
Once again that is something you don’t need any help with.
"Hope this helps."
You start off helpful, but then you go off mid-stream into Mormonism in general, moving topics, making things look random. One thing for sure you have completely turned me off from Wikipedia. Though your responses start off effective, you then turn them into a message board. I tried to make my responses direct with a total word count of 353. Yours have a total word count of 1690.
I am new to wikipedia, and I wasn’t sure how the emails work and so I posted my email on my user page. I have recently learned of the ‘email this user link’. So feel free to continue the rant however you wish, as for me I quit wikipedia. Anon012345 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why you've come to wikipedia to argue this? There is no argument to be had. And I'm not sure why you are getting so defensive. I've provided sources to my thoughts. You just don't seem to agree with them. That is fine.

Answers to your questions from PCP: "...the correlation committee under the direction of the First Presidency, began to print materials and other curriculum to clarify and standardize what the church hierarchy considered to be official church doctrines and history."

In other words, anything from the first presidency is standardized doctrine.

Changing midstream. I was talking about Mormon "doctrines" whether cultural or real. You said:

"I personally know non-LDS Mormons who say your interpretations are not very clear. I can think of at 3 distinct religions that believe in the same SW, but with different interpretations. Community of Christ, LDS Mormons, Fundamentalist."

This statement moved the discussion from the LDS church to the movement at large. I did not bring up the wider movement prior.

I'm sorry that I try to make my explanations thorough. Word count is not important on the Wiki, but clarity is. I do appreciate the feedback that I'm long-winded, but I also want to make sure that i'm not misunderstood. Obviouly, I should have made these longer, as there is still misunderstanding. I also disagree that I make things look random. I've tried to use examples and references to make things simple. I have no need to "rant" as you suggest, my purpose is to clarify the misperceptions that others have. I'm sorry that I have not cleared this up for you. I'm glad to answer questions, but as I've stated before, I'm not an apologist, and I won't go down that path. If you have questions, feel free to ask. I'm sorry you felt that I was offensive, or whatever. That was not my intent. The doctrines of the gospel are pretty simple - its unfortunate that there is so much speculation where none needs to be. We really don't have to have all of the questions answered in this life - nor do we or other christians claim to. That is the purpose of faith and hope.

I do hope you reconsider and stay at Wikipedia. However, you may want to edit more - as that's where the joy and fun of wikipedia is. You've only made two edit entries - and they were both very good. I'd encourage you to do more. You obviously have a talent for it. I hope you give it another try. -Visorstuff 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Prove to me that you don’t have to have the last word by not responding to this. Anon012345 20:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The very idea that LDS church doctrine is mediated by the "Correlation Department" and that it has any say in what doctrine is is outrageous, unscriptural, and antithetical to everything that historical Momonism ever stood for. Mormons have always taught that God revealed his will only to his prophets. The attempt to smooth over obvious doctrinal changes and equivocations by saying that anything that is not run through "correlation" is not doctrine gives a bunch of salaried, middle management, bureacrats a role in the development of church doctrine that is ridiculous and ought be offensive to any Mormon who really believes that the "prophet" guides the Church. Turtle

You misunderstand. The Correlation department does not create doctrine, the prophet does. The correlation department ensures what doctrine is pronounced is taught properly in church curriculum. The current president of the church alone has the right to change, and pronounce doctrine. If it is not in correlation (which the prophet is a member ofthe committee) then it is not currently taught by the current prophet and is not doctrine or binding on the church. AND correlation is scriptural. The brethren do not create groups or committees without scriptural backing. Correlation preserves doctrines and makes them available to church members and families. There are a number of good ensign articles I'll try to dig up as they will help answer this question. -Visorstuff 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a naive and anachronistic view of correlation. Show me one reference to "correlation" in the LDS standard works. Who "correlated" Brigham Young's sermons? Joseph Smith's? Correlation is a late Twentieth Century invention that amounts to nothing more than "getting the story 'right'" and pretending it has always been thus. See for instance the "correlated" lesson manuauls of the Church used 3 or 4 years ago regarding Brigham Young. Those "correlated" manuals "correlated" BY's polygamy right out of his quotes without acknowledging that this was done; correlated out his teaching that Adam is God; correlated out blood atonement. This censorship and surpression of data was done with quotes around his comments as though the "correlated words" had actually been uttered by Brigham Young. Another example is the "topicization" of the Sunday School lesson manual to discourage study of the historical and contextual development of the Doctrine and Covenants. That is what "correlation" does, it pretends that the beliefs of today's Wasatch Front Mormons have always prevailed and censors and surpresses any indication to the contrary. Not entirely honest or ethical in my view. (unsigned by anon - same IP as Turtle)
I've not been called naive when it comes to church policy, scriptures or church government before. Why do you say that is naive? Having spent time researching many of these topics, I think I am very well informed, probably better than most. The principle of correlation is based on the follwoing statemet (and scriptures):
Correlation serves under the direction of the First Presidency and the Twelve. It provides order to the many parts of the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40; D&C 28:13; 107:84; 132:8) and systematic reviews of proposed action (cf. Matt. 18:16; D&C 6:28). It helps organizations avoid unnecessary duplication. Correlation ensures that Church programs, materials, and activities:
  • Support and strengthen families in learning and living the gospel.
  • Are directed by the priesthood.
  • Use the scriptures and the words of the prophets as the basis for teaching.
  • Comply with policies and meet standards approved by the council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
  • Are simple to comprehend and use.
  • Conserve demands in effort, time, or money on Church members.
  • Encourage people to use local resources whenever appropriate and authorized, rather than to make them totally dependent on Church headquarters.
Second, the auxilliaries are just that - auxilliary to the priesthood. The priesthood structure IS the church.
Third, you wrote: "Correlation is a late Twentieth Century invention." That is completely inaccurate. A formal "Correlation" (the first time the term was used) program began in 1907/1908 (called the Committee of Correlation and Adjustments). It could be argued that programs begun under the "entrenchment" in 1869 were part of a correlation effort. In fact, even farther back than that, the role of the Anointed Quorum and Council of Fifty was just that - to correlate and place the auxiliaries, including the Relief Society under the direction of the Priesthood (LDS).
Fourth - your understanding of LDS policy is strange. In speaking of the Brigham Young manuals used in 2000, you wrote: Those "correlated" manuals "correlated" BY's polygamy right out of his quotes without acknowledging that this was done. First of all, if you are familiar with the history of polygamy in the LDS church you would know that the church does not teach polygamy: "When any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved." Not one thing should be taught about plural marriage in the Church after the manifesto was sustained as part of the canon in the LDS church, re-emphasized and found as binding to the church at large (under HJG administration). So, of course the correlation would remove references to polygamy - as it is current church policy on the matter. Second, who could read the manual and not realize that when you see the word "wife" in brackets, he said wives. All you had to do is look in the footnotes or the introduction. Lame argument, no offense.
Fifth, Blood Atonement and the Adam-God theory were not considered binding during his time, let alone now. You probably know of the "doctrinal" clarifications that were made because of disagreements between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young. That article that appeared in the Deseret News more than a hundred years ago did not list either of these doctrines as either doctrinal nor as essential to salvation. Also, they didn't make it into the book along with other doctrines like fasting, the three degrees of glory, importance of prophets, patriarchal blessings and many other church teachings, which are very much alive today. You can't include all of the teachings of one man into one book that will be studied in a year (or in this case two years).
Lastly, it is laughable that you think the church discourages study of its "historical and contextual development." Rather it aids in the teaching that has to be packed into an hour. It provides focus on one or two main points, rather than fifty things anyone could pick out of verses in the scriptures. I'm sure the release of the mormon massacre documents, the hoffman forged documents and the joseph smith papers is all supression as well. They have been kept in the archives and preserved, but now are available in text to a wider group of individuals. IF you've ever been to the church archives and historical department, you'll know how "secretive" or not the church is with documents. The last time I went, I checked in a few minutes after the Tanners, who had signed the registry. Allowing known detractors of the church to have access to documents seems very trusting to me - not "censors and surpresses." Keeping the facimilies in the book of Abraham to me spurs further research, not detracts from it. Try getting information from the vatican vaults, or from the southern baptist convention on their racial policies. Can't get them? HMMMM. They definitely existed - we can read about them in newspapers. Now where are they? Where is that record. It seems that because the LDS church has such an good historical record that if something is not readily available or missing then Anti-Mormons automatically think that its being supressed. Deseret Book still sells the Journal of Discourses. Why would a Church owned bookstore sell something that anti-Mormons think the church is trying to supress? Your arguement is strange to me.
It is also strange that you have espoused a view that "the beliefs of today's Wasatch Front Mormons have always prevailed." I know of no Mormon who thinks that when Joseph Smith walked out of the sacred grove that he knew all of the gospel. The church grows, doctrines are clarified. Doctrines can even change. He and we learn line upon line. I bet that when he finished translating the book of Mormon that he still had questions about priesthood authority limits, about chruch organizational structure. Even better, he probably didn't even know what he didn't know. The three degrees of glory probably hadn't even crossed his mind to ask. The historicalness of the apocrypha? Sealings? Baptism for the dead? the endowment? pre-mortal world? Most Mormons I know realize that the church's and Smith's teachings changed over time. The church's may change further as we are given more light and knowledge.
No correlation is not about "getting the story right and pretending it has always been thus." It is about what is taught by modern prophets, what is based on canonical scripture, what is essential to salvation. I think many anti-Mormons think that Mormons place so much emphasis on modern prophets and it has always been thus. When you look at historical sermons (including the Journal of discources), the bulk of the sermons are about Christ, his atonement, and so forth. However, it is the rare statements, (the five or so statements about adam, abraham and christ being gods; the six or seven or so statements about blood being shed being needed for certain sins, etc.) that are sensational enough that mark "doctrinal differences" between us and traditional christians that are emphasized. I can find similar statements in protestant sects (aside from the adam-god theory) for every odd teachings by a mormon leader, including the deification of man, curse of ham, blood atonement and israelitish indiginous americans. In fact, all of those have been taught by at least one baptist pastor at one time or another. Mormon strange teachings are just better documented and more vehenemently opposed.
Sorry for the long response, but you seem to have very strange view of correlation and of church teachings and history. I'd invite you to learn more - a good place to start is of course the book of mormon, D&C, and pearl of great price. THen current church manuals, missionary library, the history of the church volumes 1-6, then teachings of the prophet joseph smith, journal of discourses, priestood and church government (which explains the need for correlation as outlined in the scriptures), and a hundred other books. Most people don't make it past the first one I recommend, and they definitely don't read current manuals to compare how unchanged the teachings are over time with the more historical teachings. I hope you will take time to understand what you do not at this time. It seems odd to me that people are exposed to what is being taught and don't understand it at its face value. They buy garments and temple clothes and then are amazed that they have to dress in them at the temple. I wonder what they thought they were going to do with them. They read the manifesto (OD-1) and wonder why Polygamy is not taught in church manuals. They hear the book of mormon has changed from the 1920 version, but they don't read the preface page that says that, or read the numerous Ensign (or in the old days, the Improvement Era) articles that outline each change and why it was made. I'm defintely not an apologist or an intellectual, but I and a Mormon and I aspire to be a Latter-day Saint. And I guess I have a different view than you do. But your arguments don't seem to make sense. What is your relationship to the church? -Visorstuff 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As a third party between this new discussion between Turtle and Visorstuff, let me say that this last response by Visorstuff if fairly decent, though winded as usually. However, the comment,
First of all, if you are familiar with the history of polygamy in the LDS church you would know that the church does not teach polygamy: "When any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved."
is absolutely hilarious. I am emailing this one to friends. We are all getting a kick out of it. I do not know a single devout LDS person that would claim this. Also, changing doctrine is anathema to the LDS faith, contrary to Visorstuff. Anon012345 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think after a person claims not to be an apologist more than 100 times they become one. :-p Anon012345 06:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
To address your second response - changing doctrine is not anathema to the LDS faith. "According to the Doctrine and Covenants, which includes information on the offices and policies of the church, the president of the church is the only man empowered to receive revelation for the entire church and to change or clarify doctrine." The president of the Church can receive a revelation that we are all descendents of monkeys and that would be the new church doctrine, although it is not now. I'm amazed that you claim to be familiar with the church and not know this.
Second, I am a devout Mormon, so now you know one. I've been told this on a number of occasions by other church leaders - and as a church leader, I've stopped discussions about polygamy in classes because of that statement. We are not supposed to teach it. Hense, it is not discussed in general conference or anywhere else, aside from historical context. It cracks me up when people say "plygamy will come back someday" because that has never been taught, and for it to be taugh would be in violation of the earlier statement. it is not to be done.
Third, I want to make sure you understand that I am not defending the church by putting for the doctrines. My primary purpose for originally joining wikipedia a few year ago, was to ensure that the doctrines of the LDS church are properly represented. The second purpose was to aid editing with some of my expertise into the history, culture, practices and policies of the church and Mormonism in general. Therefore, i try had not to get into apologetics, and generally won't email debate (by the way, have i really said it more than 100 times? If so, that's sad that you counted them).
Sorry you think it is funny. But the pure doctrines and policies are pretty straightforward in the scriptures. The culture of Mormonism may seemingly alter some of them (such as the terminology around outer darkness) but the doctrines and policies are straightforward. Again, just becuase people overlook what is stated in print, or can't figure out temple info when it is right in front of them in the scriptures, or if they think they get to create world with purple dinosaurs, means they are looking beyond the mark, and not taking things as they are meant. Not the church's fault that people are not all on the same intelligence plane, or miss things that are right in front of them. This is why we learn line upon line. If your devout friends have missed this, well, hopefully you can share with them and they can now know. -Visorstuff 15:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

May be we should clarify “change”. There are additions (the word of wisdom), clarifications (what does ‘hot drinks’ mean), and LDS Church standards (every member is suppose to follow the word of wisdom). The LDS Church could weaken or strengthen standards without a change in doctrine occurring. For example, the LDS Church could allow smokers to be baptized without changing the doctrine that smoking is bad.
Lastly, there are doctrinal contradictions. Highly organized religions have little room for doctrinal contradictions. Older organized religions such as the Catholic Church have come to terms with doctrinal contradictions, whereas the younger organized religions such as the LDS Church and Jehovah Witnesses are still struggling with them. Being that doctrinal contradictions are anathema, there is a need to explain them away has not being contradictions.
Saying that “we are all descendents of monkeys” would be a direct contradiction to 2 Nephi 2:22, as is the theory of evolution. “I'm amazed that you claim to be familiar with the church and not know this.” But of course if the President of the LDS church were to make such a doctrinal statement it would not be a contradiction because obviously 1. I am not on the “same intelligence plane” and 2. I “miss things that are right in front” of me. Anon012345 10:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you consider doctrinal contradictions that are anathema to the LDS church?
Please don't think that I'm placing myself of others as smarter than others because all of us are on different "intelligence planes." I'm sure you know many things I don't, and vice versus. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something - and I definitely don't claim to know it all. We are different planes to help each other along the path.
Also, staying in the same "state" "afer they were created" (2 Ne 2:22) is much different than talking about theological evolution. I do not agree with the idea of theistic/theological evolution at all personally, being I definitely believe the gospel and standard works allow for it. Even the late Pope said evolution was not out of harmony with catholic teaching on the creation of man. I don't see how: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created" prohibits evolution from occuring. "afer they were created" implies that there was a creation process. Now whether or not this process included death and evolution is another arguement, not appropriate for this disucssion, and hotly debated within scholars in the LDS church. Again, I do not personally believe theological evolution, but the scriptures definitely allow for it. Again, this is where you are so sure that there is only one right answer, but it is not set in stone. Coming to conclusions where there is none to be had is quite close minded. Many church members believe like you have stated (and may be right), but a theory is very different that the word of a prophet on the matter saying "thus saith the lord." the JFS "orgin of man" proclamation and DOM both allowed for evolution in their clarifications on the matter. -Visorstuff 16:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If the idea that the LDS church can not have doctrinal contradictions because it is doctrine-less works for you, more power to you, rock on. Does not work for me.

This is a problem I have trying to figure out how to resolve. Case study example: A young lady I knew in 1994 was thinking of joining the LDS church in order to marry her boyfriend. She express to me a particular concern over the doctrine of polygamy. To help her make an objective decision I explain that many Mormons tell me that polygamy is not an official doctrine. She responded that this was nonsense; she had been around Mormons enough to know that they all believe in it. She joined the Mormons anyways and married her boyfriend.

I have tried to figure out how wikipedia as an encyclopedia could solve such a situation and have come to the conclusion that it can not. The individual simply just has to be as smart as that young lady. Wikipedia searches on

“mormon beliefs”


“mormon doctrines”


“what do mormons belief’

only seem to obfuscate more than clarify. Things like Adam-God theory and Blood Atonement rightfully belong in an encyclopedia, but are much too esoteric for someone who as just heard of Mormons and wants to know their “doctrine”. I am sure a page exist some where in wikipedia, but it is lost to the casual user having to sift through everything else.

As for this article, I am sure that is why “Mormon Doctrine” had such an impacted, simply because no such book yet existed. I have checked with older Mormons I know and they say that in the 60s, 70s and even in the 80s it was the book used as de facto reference for church doctrine by members. Let’s say a little more than 1 million ACTIVE Mormons in the US in 1970. An average of 4+ people to a temple going household, so .. about 300,000? Temple Mormon households. How many copies of both versions of “Mormon Doctrine” sold? I am sure such a numbers exists. They would make a great inclusion to the article. Anon012345 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I hate to break up this spirited debate; however, I think that the discussion has deteriorated into a soapbox of sorts. Just a reminder that talk pages should be used to discuss what information should go on the article page etc. This section started out that way (tenuously), but is definately moving into more of a theological discussion. Thanks- Trödel|talk 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

THanks for the reminder Jim. I'm done. -Visorstuff 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem - just trying to keep things civil ;) - especially since this page pushed me over the edge at one time. Trödel|talk 01:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


I added some material from two of Elder McConkie's biographies concerning his childhood, mission, marriage, family, education, and military service. I hope to add more soon about his service as a mission president and his call to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. I was surprised to discover that Elder McConkie really was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan as a previous poster tried to point out. --Dan Forward 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Priesthood Restriction[edit]

I believe the section on the priesthood restriction covers the points previously stated without the use of weasel words. The idea is not to cast a reproachful spin on the subject, but to express the facts surrounding him in a straightforward, neutral manner. --Dan Forward 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite what you did on the preisthood restriction. What you call "weasel words" were extended quotations from McConkie himself. You should admit that you are bound by a religious conviction that does not permit you to tolerate any "evil speaking" of the "Lord's annointed" -- you therefore have turned this page into a theolgical defense of McConkie rather than a statement of factsa about him. That is typical Mormon censorship, and I will correct it.

Let's remember that this page is an encyclopedic biography of a person. It is not a place to detail doctrines or debate theology. The priesthood restriction is a complicated issue. I quoted only enough of Elder McConkie's writings to give a sense of what he believed on the issue in 1958 and how later, after the 1978 revelation, he came to a clearer understanding. The topic is detailed (although rather poorly) on other Wikipedia pages. Dan Forward (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LDS Scripture Chapter Headings[edit]

Bruce. R. McConkie did Not Write the Chaper headings for he church. This is a common latter day-saint myth, He was only on the commite that did.____ Coalhouse

Elder McConkie was a member of the Scriptures Committee and he personally wrote every chapter heading in the LDS edition of the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price. His biographies mention that he received feedback from others on the committee and made adjustments due to that feedback, but he was their author. I have cited an online source, which states "As most people are aware Elder McConkie also wrote the chapter headings for the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price. What is often missed here is that these headings constitute a commentary, howbeit brief, on each chapter in these books." [3] Dan Forward 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Is it time to archive this talk page? -- (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Military career[edit]

The summary box says his military career began in 1937.

The text of the article indicates he was studying for his professional degree, probably from his bachelors in 1937 till his JD in 1939. The article indicates he did not join the military until 1942, five years after the date given in the summary box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:D5B4:48F:88:1B28 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)