On the other hand, I admire his zest for stating things directly, even bluntly. His talks were never recycled self-improvement mush masquerading as the gospel. He was never boring. I wish there were representatives of the liberal side of Mormonism in leadership who would make similar direct statements to balance the Mormon message. I find it ironic that David O. McKay, the closest thing we’ve had to a liberal President and who was President of the Church for over 20 years, is today almost forgotten. Yet Joseph Fielding Smith, President for only two and one-half years, remains a central figure.

As for Mormon Doctrine–well, it was about time someone tried to make a systematic expostion of the doctrine. It had its flaws and he was unable to distinguish between Mormon doctrine and Bruce R. McConkie’s doctrine, but it laid the foundation for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which seems like an improved attempt to do what Mormon Doctrine tried to do.

The terms liberal and conservative get tossed around a lot and they have different meaning to different people. I am curious as to what you mean by stating that we need a representative of the “liberal side of Mormonism” or that President McKay was a “liberal President”.

I think you give Elder McConkie too much credit for creating “a strong tendancy (at least for the average US member) towards literalist
readings, a black/white ‘truth or damanable falsehood’ mentality, and a reluctance to make use of modern scholarship.” It seems to me that our doctrine and history create such a tendency, and that McConkie may himself have fallen into this “tendancy” rather than create it. Our doctrine is black and white in many areas. We whole-heartedly ascribe to a belief in absolute truth. Mormon notes in Moroni 7 that the light of Christ shows truth from error as the sun at noonday from the black of night. Elder McConkie and others simply have given opinions in areas where we do not have revealed confirmation of the Lord’s view in black and white terms. In some areas, they have likely overreached.

Now I disagree with many of his comments on some matters. But I see that more in the midst of a social “war” raging from the 1940’s to 1980’s (on which he was frequently on the incorrect side of certain matters, as the revelation on the priesthood demonstrates).

i love elder mcconkies zeal and love of the gospel. i also admire his fearless desire to teach what he thought was truth. however, at the same time i almost abhor his false seemingly absolute authority he placed on his own opinions. (i hope that last sentance made sense). unfortunately, too many lds are too quick to just accept what he said without evaluating his doctrines and comparing them to words of other prophets (especially brigham young), scriptures, and reason.

its interesting how mcconkies family line shares the same techniques in their preaching. j. fielding smith -> bruce r. mcconkie -> joseph fielding mcconkie. now did joseph f. smith have this same approach as he taught?

To add to what I’d said earlier, I think one reason McConkie was popular is because he attempted some degree of systemizing. Further there was, until the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, no real “dictionary” for gospel topics. I do think that is important, especailly for new members. One hopes that if a new edition of the scriptures comes about that the current Bible Dictionary (also largely done by McConkie) is expanded and rewritten somewhat.

The problem is more that McConkie saw a real problem and attempted to solve it. His success was his weakness as he was so successful at solving the problem that people stopped questioning…

But I find it unfortunate that he gets flack for trying to do an important service.

I have great respect for the massive amount of effort that went into producing Mormon Doctrine, especially in the pre – Internet/Infobases/Word processing era from whence it came. However, I feel it unfortunate that the collaboratively produced Encyclopedia of Mormonism, has not taken a greater foothold amongst the Saints in our day – perhaps due to it’s significantly higher cost.

On the question of errors, my understanding is that most were corrected in the 2nd edition. Using a copy of the Marion G. Romney letter of 1959, and 1st and 2nd editions of Mormon Doctrine, I have hand marked all changes made to the 2nd edition, and from memory, practically everything noted in the letter was addressed.

Whilst entertaining accounts confirm his tremendous confidence in his own understanding of the Scriptures* I feel that the take home lesson we can learn from Elder McConkie is that we should each develop a similar confidence in ourselves and our understanding of the Scriptures.

*One account has a missionary asking a question regarding some point of doctrine. When asked for a reference, Elder McConkie replied “I said it, and you can quote me.” (Reference eludes me at the moment)
Another shares a question asked in conversation by a recent convert, following a Stake Conference. Elder McConkie had spoken during the Conference of the necessity of temple marriage for exaltation. The convert says “but Christ wasn’t married” to which Elder McConkie leans his 6′ 5″ frame forward and in his deep voice says “Who said he wasn’t!?” (Personal recollection by convert in mission field)

mcconkie obviously did not use brigham young as any source considering at mcconkie called at least two of young’s teachings about god deadly heresies (one of which was made in an official declaration by young and his counselors (god’s progression of knowledge))

i guess my frustration should be more pointed at members of the church who have practically canonized his works and hold them even higher (it can seem) than the scriptures and proclamations of other latter-day prophets

I agree, however, that too many teachers used to use “Mormon Doctrine” almost like scripture. The good news, from my own observation, is that this is hardly ever the case anymore. The last five years has seen a markedly improved personal study of the Scriptures in Sunday School and elsewhere. Many more brilliant and diverse reference works are being utilized far more often. In fact, I almost never see “Mormon Doctrine” anywhere other than a shelf. Its days are passing . . . for good and ill.

Finally, I think that the perception of “literalist” interpretation goes back as far as Joseph Smith and even Brigham Young. Those who deny this seem to have a selective reading habit; paying attention to the more “scandolous” statements and ignoring the bulk of the teachings. The fact is that LDS Doctrine is a very literal religion. Joseph Smith himself said as much.