What's wrong with Mormon Doctrine? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Venkman · 05-29-2007, 09:09 PM

We had the book in the home when I was growing up, but aside from the occasional reference lookup, I don't know much about it. I realize there were errors, most notably blacks and the priesthood (later fixed?), but I didn't realize the book was considered complete trash by so many. Can someone give me the reader's digest version on the problems with Modoc?

All-American · 05-29-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman

We had the book in the home when I was growing up, but aside from the occasional reference lookup, I don't know much about it. I realize there were errors, most notably blacks and the priesthood (later fixed?), but I didn't realize the book was considered complete trash by so many. Can someone give me the reader's digest version on the problems with Modoc?

Two problems: one, it has many errors (1,000+); and two, it assumes and operates under an authority that was never given.

Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is complete trash. If it were entitled "This is what Elder Bruce R. McKonkie thinks about everything," it would be a really good book.

RockyBalboa · 05-29-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Two problems: one, it has many errors (1,000+); and two, it assumes and operates under an authority that was never given.

Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is complete trash. If it were entitled "This is what Elder Bruce R. McKonkie thinks about everything," it would be a really good book.

Does it really assume and operate under authority never given?

I've never read it completely, only bits here and there....but does he have a foreword or introduction absolving the church and saying what he writes is his opinion and not official church press? Most LDS Authors do that.

I really don't know, so just curious if he did or not.

Tex · 05-29-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Two problems: one, it has many errors (1,000+); and two, it assumes and operates under an authority that was never given.

Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is complete trash. If it were entitled "This is what Elder Bruce R. McKonkie thinks about everything," it would be a really good book.

We hear this 1000 number a lot (from the McKay book, IIRC), but I'd really like to see the comprehensive list. There are a few (Great and Abominable church, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc.) that come to mind, but I'd really like to see something more thorough before continuing to toss a number around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Does it really assume and operate under authority never given?

I've never read it completely, only bits here and there....but does he have a foreword or introduction absolving the church and saying what he writes is his opinion and not official church press? Most LDS Authors do that.

I really don't know, so just curious if he did or not.

Yes he did. I believe the beginning reads something to that effect.

SeattleUte · 05-29-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

We hear this 1000 number a lot (from the McKay book, IIRC), but I'd really like to see the comprehensive list. There are a few (Great and Abominable church, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc.) that come to mind, but I'd really like to see something more thorough before continuing to toss a number around.

Yes he did. I believe the beginning reads something to that effect.

I bet he said all the Indians and Samoans are Lamanites.

RockyBalboa · 05-29-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Two problems: one, it has many errors (1,000+); and two, it assumes and operates under an authority that was never given.

Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is complete trash. If it were entitled "This is what Elder Bruce R. McKonkie thinks about everything," it would be a really good book.

Are there honestly 1000+ errors in the book?

Is there a link, something I can read.

All-American · 05-29-2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Are there honestly 1000+ errors in the book?

Is there a link, something I can read.

The quote from the McKay book (a page from President McKay's diary, I believe) is floating around here somewhere. Archaea just posted this:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...4&postcount=43

And yes, he did post a disclaimer that stated that the content of the book was his responsibility alone. But with a title like Mormon Doctrine, the disclaimer doesn't hold as much weight as it needed to.

RockyBalboa · 05-29-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

The quote from the McKay book (a page from President McKay's diary, I believe) is floating around here somewhere. Archaea just posted this:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...4&postcount=43

And yes, he did post a disclaimer that stated that the content of the book was his responsibility alone. But with a title like Mormon Doctrine, the disclaimer doesn't hold as much weight as it needed to.

Is that from the book "David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism"?

I have it, just haven't read it yet.

Archaea · 05-30-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Is that from the book "David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism"?

I have it, just haven't read it yet.

It's from the journal of David O. McKay while he was President, kept in part by his lifetime secretary.

SteelBlue · 05-30-2007, 12:48 AM

From "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" page 50:

"McKay's initial reaction to the book was not favorable. IN a First Presidency meeting, he said that 'the General Authorities of the Church should be informed that the First Presidency expect no book to be published unless it be first submitted.' The dilemma for him was the same he had faced four years earlier with Smith's book: "In the minds of the people the General Authorieties in their individual capacities cannot be separated from them in their official capacities.' McKay was tolerant of McConkie's individual views but objected, as he had with Smith, to McConkie's implication that those views represented official church doctrine."

"McKay's first step was to obtain a copy of the book and study it. ONe of his secretaries noted, 'He went through the whole thing. HE had paper clips [on the pages wheree he had a question], and there were hundreds of them there.' Then he summoned two senior apostles, Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. '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.' Having a General Authority send such an addendum would have been unprecedented, an indication of the seriousness with which McKay took McConkie's breach of propriety.

"Petersen and ROmney took ten months to critique the book and make their report to the First Presidency. Romney submitted a lengthy letter on January , 1960, detailing what he felt were the most egregious errors in the book and noting: 'It's 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.' On the same day, Petersen gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections that 'affected most of the 776 pages of the book.' Their reports placed McKay on the horns of a dilemma: How could he regain control of doctrinal exposition wihtout destroying McConkie's credibility and career? McKay summarized the problem in the same diary entry: 'It was agreed that the neccessary 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.'" (emphasis added by me)

"The following day, McKay and his counselors made their decision. The book 'must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements...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.'"

05-29-2007, 09:09 PM	#1
Venkman Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: South Jordan, UT Posts: 1,799	What's wrong with Mormon Doctrine? We had the book in the home when I was growing up, but aside from the occasional reference lookup, I don't know much about it. I realize there were errors, most notably blacks and the priesthood (later fixed?), but I didn't realize the book was considered complete trash by so many. Can someone give me the reader's digest version on the problems with Modoc?

05-30-2007, 12:48 AM	#10
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	From "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" page 50: "McKay's initial reaction to the book was not favorable. IN a First Presidency meeting, he said that 'the General Authorities of the Church should be informed that the First Presidency expect no book to be published unless it be first submitted.' The dilemma for him was the same he had faced four years earlier with Smith's book: "In the minds of the people the General Authorieties in their individual capacities cannot be separated from them in their official capacities.' McKay was tolerant of McConkie's individual views but objected, as he had with Smith, to McConkie's implication that those views represented official church doctrine." "McKay's first step was to obtain a copy of the book and study it. ONe of his secretaries noted, 'He went through the whole thing. HE had paper clips [on the pages wheree he had a question], and there were hundreds of them there.' Then he summoned two senior apostles, Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. '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.' Having a General Authority send such an addendum would have been unprecedented, an indication of the seriousness with which McKay took McConkie's breach of propriety. "Petersen and ROmney took ten months to critique the book and make their report to the First Presidency. Romney submitted a lengthy letter on January , 1960, detailing what he felt were the most egregious errors in the book and noting: 'It's 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.' On the same day, Petersen gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections that 'affected most of the 776 pages of the book.' Their reports placed McKay on the horns of a dilemma: How could he regain control of doctrinal exposition wihtout destroying McConkie's credibility and career? McKay summarized the problem in the same diary entry: 'It was agreed that the neccessary 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.'" (emphasis added by me) "The following day, McKay and his counselors made their decision. The book 'must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements...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.'"