Question
Dear Gramps,
I’ve heard that there are a lot of errors in both editions of McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine.” What exactly are those errors? Furthermore, how could the Church allow him to publish a book with so many errors and call it “Mormon Doctrine”? Isn’t that a bit misleading?
Brian
Answer
Brian,
To comprehend the rationale behind the publication of Mormon Doctrine, it’s essential to contextualize its inception. Bruce R. McConkie, a prominent leader within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, served as a Seventy—an ecclesiastical office—and was deeply invested in articulating and systematizing LDS theology. In the late 1960s, there was a burgeoning need for a comprehensive doctrinal compendium that could serve both Church leaders and laity, particularly in light of increasing academic interest and scrutiny of LDS doctrines.
McConkie’s ambition was to create a definitive source that could clarify and consolidate Church teachings. However, the absence of rigorous editorial oversight and the lack of direct Church sanctioning at the time of the first edition’s publication led to criticisms regarding inaccuracies and interpretative liberties taken by McConkie. The second edition sought to address some of these criticisms by refining the tone and correcting foundational errors, although debates persisted regarding the extent of these revisions.
One of the pivotal factors influencing the publication of Mormon Doctrine was the level of editorial oversight exercised by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to sources, the initial publication process lacked comprehensive review by Church authorities, which contributed to the incorporation of perceived errors. McConkie, holding the position of a Seventy, was a respected yet not top-tier member of the Church hierarchy, which perhaps contributed to the reluctance to exercise stringent control over the publication.
The decision to allow McConkie to publish without extensive editorial intervention can be interpreted through multiple lenses. On one hand, it reflects a degree of trust in McConkie’s theological expertise and dedication to elucidating Church doctrines. On the other, it points out potential gaps in the Church’s publication oversight mechanisms during that period. The subsequent revisions in the second edition, which aimed to soften the original tone and rectify errors, indicate an acknowledgment of the initial shortcomings and an attempt to align the work more closely with official Church stances.
Mormon Doctrine covers a wide array of theological topics, ranging from eschatology to the nature of God, and from priesthood authority to the purpose of life. While many readers found the work invaluable for its breadth, others criticized it for presenting speculative or non-sanctioned interpretations of doctrine. These criticisms often centered on McConkie’s extrapolations beyond established Church teachings, leading to debates about the boundaries of theological discourse within the Church.
The presence of errors, whether factual or interpretative, raised concerns regarding the authoritative weight of the publication. If a work touted as “doctrine” contained inaccuracies, it could inadvertently mislead members and erode trust in Church-provided resources. This situation necessitated a delicate balancing act for Church leadership: addressing the inaccuracies without dismissing the utility of the work entirely for providing a structured overview of LDS theology.
In the years following the publication of Mormon Doctrine, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken a more proactive role in overseeing and guiding internal publications. The controversies surrounding McConkie’s work likely influenced the Church’s approach to authoring and approving doctrinal materials. Emphasizing official channels and comprehensive editorial review ensures that theological narratives remain consistent and authoritative, preventing the dissemination of potentially misleading interpretations.
Moreover, the Church has increasingly utilized official publications, such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and various manuals, which undergo meticulous review processes. These efforts aim to provide members with reliable and accurate resources, minimizing the risk of doctrinal confusion and enhancing the coherence of Church teachings across different mediums.
The case of Mormon Doctrine exemplifies the tension between scholarly exploration and the maintenance of doctrinal integrity within religious organizations. While encouraging intellectual engagement and theological discourse is valuable for the growth and resilience of faith communities, it must be balanced against the need to uphold consistent and accurate representations of core beliefs.
The Church’s decision to allow the publication of McConkie’s work, despite its flaws, reflects a historical moment where this balance was still being navigated. The lessons learned from this experience have likely informed current practices, fostering a more structured approach to publications that align closely with official doctrines and minimize the propagation of errors.
The publication of Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine serves as a pivotal case study in understanding how religious institutions manage internal publications amid challenges of accuracy and authority. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ decision to endorse and circulate the work, even with its initial errors, showing a complex interplay of trust in leadership, the need for comprehensive doctrinal resources, and the inevitable challenges of maintaining doctrinal purity in expansive theological works.
Moving forward, The Church continues to evolve its strategies for authoring and vetting publications, striving to provide members with reliable and accurate resources while fostering an environment that encourages thoughtful theological inquiry. The legacy of Mormon Doctrine highlights the importance of editorial oversight, the challenges of balancing scholarly expression with doctrinal fidelity, and the ongoing commitment to refining how religious teachings are communicated and preserved.
Gramps
