McConkie was the most influential theologian in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the second half of the twentieth century. His magnus opus was Mormon Doctrine, an encyclopedia which attempted to answer all of the important questions about Mormon doctrine. It has been somewhat controversial because many of the answers it gave were wrong, but I think that it has a bigger problem. Mormon Doctrine is contrary to the way Mormonism approaches Truth.
Prerequisites: Having heard of Mormon Doctrine would be helpful, but not required.
Originally Written: September 2021.
Confidence Level: Interesting and useful to think about.
Mormon Doctrine was an aberration. There has never been another book, written by a leader in the Restored Church, which attempts to answer all of the important questions. The closest thing today is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, maintained by BYU, but it is not nearly as authoritative or well known as Mormon Doctrine was.
Understanding what Mormon Doctrine was helps us understand how Mormonism approaches Truth.
Many Christian churches have a creed, which is a statement of all of the key beliefs of the religion. Ancient creeds were often short and intended to be memorized. Modern creeds are much longer, and often include multiple ancient creeds. A classic example of a modern creed is the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was/is used by Pilgrims and Presbyterians.
Joseph Smith explicitly rejected creeds, calling them “an abomination”. He did not only think that they are wrong, he rejected the idea that a religion ought to have a creed. The creed tells you everything that you need to know about God, and removes the need for continuing revelation.
In the early church, this anti-creedalism meant that the leaders of the church speculated widely, but that most of it was subject to revision. People today are most likely to have heard of Brigham Young’s speculations, but nonauthoritative speculations were common among apostles in that generation. My favorite is Orson Pratt, for example Absurdities of Immaterialism (1849). I don’t read them because they’re correct, but because they’re interesting to explore. Many even contradict each other.
During the 1800s, the Restored Church did not have a single theology: it had multiple different theologies united by their respect for the Bible, Book of Mormon, teachings of Joseph Smith, and a desire to build Zion. This diversity continued into the early 1900s, when there were public disagreements between apostles on questions like whether pre-Adamites existed & evolved and whether there was progression between Kingdoms of Glory.
McConkie tried to write a creed for Mormonism. This is not only contrary to what Joseph Smith taught about continual revelation, it also was a massive power grab by someone who was a junior member of Church leadership. In 1958, he was a 70, but not an Apostle. He did not ask the First Presidency or Apostles for approval, they found over 1,000 inaccuracies in it, then told him not to republish it:
We [the First Presidency of the church] 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 to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition.
McConkie ignored them. Throughout his life, McConkie tried to get the entire church to conform to what he considered to be doctrine, even if something else had been taught by apostles or prophets. Probably the most forceful example of this is his talk Seven Deadly Heresies, which was given at a BYU Fireside, while many of his “heresies” had been taught in General Conference.
Much of the Church followed McConkie. I don’t know if this is more because the general membership preferred unambiguous answers to the often contradictory speculations of previous leaders or more because it was institutionally promoted through Priesthood Correlation. Either way, McConkie was the most influential theologian in the church for at least a generation.
We are now moving away from creeds again. But instead of our leadership being more open about multiple opinions on doctrine, they have focused on only teaching fewer simple doctrines. I don’t know whether they’re more concerned with criticism from other church leaders, with criticism from people hostile or ambivalent to the church, or with excessive support from true believers – they may be less willing to speculate because they know people will take them too seriously.
We have had three possibilities for how Mormons understand Truth:
- Pre-McConkie, with multiple speculations on deep questions.
- McConkie, with a creed that answers the deep questions and little room for different opinions.
- Post-McConkie, with little discussion of deep questions.
Of the three, I would probably prefer Pre-McConkie. There are both meaty discussions about hard questions and an acceptance of different opinions within the church. I’m not sure the best way to get there, or if that is a goal of the leadership.
I do not think that we will or should return to the creedalism of McConkie. There will never be another Mormon Doctrine.