Comments on: Saying goodbye to Mormon Doctrine

By: BCBill

BCBill — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:51:07 +0000

It is worth keeping in mind that McConkie's book was the flash point for the First Presidency (in this case under David O McKay) to put its foot firmly down and require any book by a General Authority to be OKed by them. David O McKay was apparently quite upset with the book.

We have Joseph Smith's comment to his lawyer (Butterfield, Justin I think) saying that Mormons have no creeds and don't want them because they would hem us in. The problem with works like McConkie's is that they seem authoritive and in many ways became a defacto creed for many members.

Now if we could just get him out of the CES materials I would be happy.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:32:07 +0000

Praise indeed.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:19:26 +0000

I agree, he was a great man, who had a commanding presence when speaking.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:54:03 +0000

Bruce R. McConkie may have gotten a few things wrong. I am not sorry to see us move away from his book but I can never say anything but good about this great man. He is an example to us all.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:04:37 +0000

Johnna, thatâ€s what I said in my post. Thatâ€s what Matt claims in the post to which I liked.

Your ward clerk should be receiving the curriculum order form soon. You can check with him.

By: Johnna

Johnna — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:59:23 +0000

I'm so glad they're not going to footnote Mormon Doctrine anymore. It was more a product of its times than an authoritative source. Definitely not scripture.

Anyone else hear the rumor that next year we'll all be using the Gospel Essentials manual in RS/Priesthood?

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:37:18 +0000

I don't think the members gorged themselves on Mormon Doctrine merely because it was "easy" as someone said above. Perhaps another reason was the fact that the sixties and seventies were shifty times -- morally speaking. McConkie may have been wrong on some things, and perhaps incited an irrational hyper-orthodoxy in those who were already prone to it. But he did provide a valuable service for many members who were trying to anchor themselves against the deluge of relativism and atheism that began to sweep the earth in those days.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:57:21 +0000

David, Nephi says the same thing about Isaiah. It was only after several months of studying Nephiâ€s quoting and expounding on Isaiah that have begun to understand this.

I agree, m&m. That being said, since they were editing Gospel Principles anyway, Iâ€m sure they could have added something recent.

Are you saying this post and its comments are controversial, R. Gary?

By: R. Gary

R. Gary — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:14:30 +0000

McConkie was a giant. He died 24 years ago. Some of this controversy over Mormon Doctrine conjures up in my mind the image of a yappy little dog growling over the body of a dead lion.

By: m&m

m&m — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:19:02 +0000

Chris, I, too, would love to see material from recent general conferences used in manuals. I think doing so would reiterate to the members how important it is to listen to the messages of the living prophets rather than just the dead ones.

I doubt anyone who has any association with the curriculum/correlation department would disagree. I imagine there might be reasons like budget or time restraints that limit how much they can revamp at a time.