Bruce R. McConkie: Apostle and Polemicist, 1915–1985 by Devery S. Anderson is the latest entry in Signature Books’ Brief Mormon Lives project. As has been the case with other books in the series, this one is a short biography of an individual of note in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is very well done.
The book covers the breadth of McConkie’s life, highlighting both events that are well known in Latter-day Saint history and some other, more personal, moments that are indicative of who he was. I appreciated more illumination on his early life and heritage (including his decades as a President of the Seventy and time as a mission president in Australia), since I haven’t heard much about that time before. I found it particularly interesting to know that Mormon Doctrine wasn’t his first controversial effort to publish a book that the First Presidency opposed—he tried publishing selections from the Journal of Discourses that he found to be relevant in the modern church as Sound Doctrine. He was asked to not proceed due to concerns about raising awareness among Church members about the Journal of Discourses (which was thought would play into Fundamentalist Mormon efforts to convert members of the Church). I also found that his pursuit of hobbies like rockhounding and jogging made McConkie feel more human.
Of course, the book covers many of the most well-known incidents and controversies in Bruce McConkie’s life. Among these are his publication of Mormon Doctrine and subsequent efforts to have it go out of print by the First Presidency, followed by efforts to get a second edition printed on McConkie’s part. (In covering this episode, the book does take the McConkie side of the story into account much more than Gregory Prince did in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.) It also discusses McConkie’s role in ending the priesthood and temple ban and his ongoing efforts to perpetuate the antiblack teachings that had supported the ban, drawing on the fantastic work of Matthew Harris in Second Class Saints as it did so. Included in that discussion are the embellished accounts of the June 1, 1978 meeting in the Salt Lake City Temple that McConkie shared and then had to backpedal on. There are other examples of course, such as his interactions with BYU professors Eugene England and George Pace, but these are some of the major ones that came up.
Anderson felt fair and even-handed in his handling of Elder Bruce R. McConkie. As he noted in the book:
However people choose to remember McConkie, it would be unfair to judge him strictly by the controversies surrounding him, as self-imposed and deeply impacting those turned out to be. Only family, friends, and colleagues really got to know him and experience the compassion and sense of humor that was such an integral part of him. This puts everyone else at a disadvantage, but even his harshest critics know that no one is one dimensional. It is therefore worth trusting the various assessments of McConkie by those who knew him intimately. … All can attest to the dedication to his church that led him to produce the large body of work nearly unmatched by anyone else in Mormonism. … There is sufficient reason to hold a charitable view toward a man who devoted the entirety of his life to a cause he loved so deeply.
pp. 196–197
While McConkie evokes strong reactions from people in all sorts of directions, he was a complex person and left a legacy of both good and bad. Devery Anderson has captured that well in Bruce R. McConkie: Apostle and Polemicist, 1915–1985.
For more of my reviews and posts about Signature Books’ Brief Mormon Lives series, see the following:
Why are we suddenly getting a deluge of materials about McConkie? So many books, articles, blog posts… Did a bunch of new material from his life suddenly become available? Is it a coincidence where many people independently chose a previously less frequently documented person to write about? Is there some behind the scenes push to change public perception of him? It seemed to me that he had been largely ignored for years, but suddenly he is everywhere.
As far as I can tell, it’s coincidental, maybe just because we’re almost to the 40 years after his death mark. It seems like there will be at least a little more coming in the next few years as well.
Perhaps due to the (relatively) recent availabiliity of Spencer W. Kimball’s journals?
I have not read either of Harris’ books and am not yet sure whether I will.
I read the preface to his Second Class Citizens book and found his description of how the senior Brethren receive revelation for the Church to be incorrect. It leaves out the fact that the power of the Holy Ghost is present when revelation is received and seems to be saying that when something is thoroughly discussed and then the president of the Church decides on it, then that is counted as a revelation. So very false as the below shows.
I am aware of no embellished accounts that had to be back-pedaled on, coming from Elder McConkie or his son Joseph Fielding McConkie or others in their family, regarding the occurrence of the revelation.
I have a transcription of a talk given by Elder McConkie’s brother-in-law (now deceased) Bill Pope, recounting what Elder McConkie had shared with family. I have posted the heart of this at Interpreter (see link below). It says this, among other things:
When we were all seated . . . Bruce began to tell us some of the events and details about this revelation. . . . One thing that he cautioned us not to do was to make it more than it was, even though I can’t imagine a greater thing than this in this life.
Bruce raised his hand and for ten minutes he discussed points that were known to the Prophet—that he had written in his memorandum to him—but they weren’t necessarily known to the other members of the quorum. Elder Packer then spoke and there were no new extensions of the discussion; there were no duplication of ideas.
Bruce said he had often wondered what Paul had meant in Acts [2:3] by “cloven tongues of fire”—these were the words that Paul used because he had no other words to describe it. But he said since this experience in the temple, when the Lord revealed to the 10 members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency His will concerning the giving of the priesthood to all worthy men, he now understood what Paul meant, because he had experienced it. But even having experienced it, he couldn’t put into words what happened except to say that he now understood what Paul meant when he said, “cloven tongues of fire fell upon the congregation,” and he said it did upon each of the members present. …
Someone asked Bruce, “was it like the day of Pentecost in the restored Church when some saw angels, some saw others and so forth?” He said, “It was like that.” They tried to get him to say who was present. He was very careful to say it was like that day and would not go into detail. …
Bruce says that this was the most spiritual experience that he had ever had, and that, if you will remember back to his conference address when he was called to be an apostle, he indicated that he had talked with the Lord prior to his being called; that he had direct communication with the Lord, and the Lord let him know that he was approved, and what was in store for him. And yet, despite all of that, he said that this was the greatest spiritual experience that he had ever had.
I do not have the book in front of me, but Arrington’s Adventures of a Church Historian has a chapter in it on the priesthood revelation, and–if my memory serves–some of the apostles Arrington interviewed stated that they had seen angels on that June 1, 1978 day.
Regarding Harris’ claim that Elder McConkie wrote D&C OD2, I have not seen his evidence but I doubt his claim:
First Presidency Secretary Francis Gibbons’ account from his biography of Pres. Kimball (chap 22):
On Tuesday, May 30, 1978, President Kimball read to his counselors a tentative statement he had written in longhand removing all priesthood restrictions from blacks except those restrictions as to worthiness that rest upon all alike. He said that he had a “good, warm feeling” about it.
On Wednesday, June 7, 1978, President Kimball advised his counselors that through inspiration he had decided to lift the restrictions on priesthood. At that time, letters were read from three members of the Twelve, which President Kimball had requested, containing suggested wording for the public announcement of the decision. Using these three letters as a base, a fourth statement was prepared and then reviewed, edited, and approved by the First Presidency. This document was taken to the council meeting with the Twelve on Thursday, June 8, 1978. At this meeting, President Kimball advised the Twelve that he had received the inspiration to make the priesthood available to all worthy male members of the Church, whereupon the document was read and, with minor editorial changes, was approved.
Between Pres. Kimball’s longhand statement and the three apostles’, ONE of which was Elder McConkie, D&C OD2 was written and finalized and published.
Elder McConkie himself wrote this in a memo to Pres. Kimball:
Bruce said he had often wondered what Paul had meant in Acts [2:3] by “cloven tongues of fire”—these were the words that Paul used because he had no other words to describe it. But he said since this experience in the temple, when the Lord revealed to the 10 members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency His will concerning the giving of the priesthood to all worthy men, he now understood what Paul meant, because he had experienced it. But even having experienced it, he couldn’t put into words what happened except to say that he now understood what Paul meant when he said, “cloven tongues of fire fell upon the congregation,” and he said it did upon each of the members present. …
Someone asked Bruce, “was it like the day of Pentecost in the restored Church when some saw angels, some saw others and so forth?” He said, “It was like that.” They tried to get him to say who was present. He was very careful to say it was like that day and would not go into detail. …
Bruce says that this was the most spiritual experience that he had ever had, and that, if you will remember back to his conference address when he was called to be an apostle, he indicated that he had talked with the Lord prior to his being called; that he had direct communication with the Lord, and the Lord let him know that he was approved, and what was in store for him. And yet, despite all of that, he said that this was the greatest spiritual experience that he had ever had.
https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-elder-bruce-r-mcconkies-witness-of-the-1978-revelation-on-the-priesthood/
From Elder McConkie’s published version:
“In the days that followed the receipt of the new revelation, President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson—the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us—both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord”
From what I remember, Harris and Anderson point out that Spencer W. Kimball strenuously objected to the descriptions of angels being present or other manifestation beyond the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Bill Pope talk you reference was what President Kimball had in mind in particular, which led to Elder McConkie doing the back peddling and accusing his sister (Bill Pope’s wife) of never telling a true, unembellished story in her life. The official written account by Elder McConkie was much more restrained as a result. But it came up again when President Kimball was in too fragile of health to meet with Elder McConkie personally, so he sent his son, Ed, to tell Elder McConkie to knock it off (paraphrasing here).
As far as revelation goes, I think you’re right that he misses the most crucial element of the Spirit being involved, but that probably has more to do with the nature of secular scholarship than anything else.
Chad,
My sense is that President Kimball was more concerned with guarding the sacred nature of the event than he was with it being mischaracterized. Of course he wouldn’t want the whole thing to get blown out of proportion either. Even so, I don’t think there’s any question that at least some of the apostles experienced some powerful New Testament-like manifestations.
Unfortunately, BRM tried and succeeded in pushing the Church toward Evangelicalism. This was facilitated by the deaths of Apostles Widtsoe and Merrill in 1954 and the declining health of President McKay.
It took a colossal ego to think that he had the right to define Mormon doctrine mostly by himself. McConkie’s book is filled with all kinds of nonsense: anti-evolution, biblical literalism, racism, no death before the fall, anti-science gibberish, etc. The latter laid the groundwork for today’s anti-vazzers and anti-maskers. Both conservative and progressive apostles objected to entries in Mormon Doctrine.
On my mission in the mid-1960’s, I was supposed to defend racism based on the beliefs of JFS, BRM, and ETB. MD was what defined Church doctrine. Since my European mission was unproductive, I would have been better off participating in the civil rights protests and marches.
BRM legacy lives on in the BYU religion department, much to the consternation of the biology and anthropology departments. The BoM’s we passed out included the statement that it was a history of theAmerican Indians. It is My understanding is that was at the request BRM. That statement has had to be walked back for obvious reason.
BRM did serious and lasting injury to Church doctrine. His damage lives on.
rogerdhansen,
I’m going to push back a little.
I take a different view. There’s been a counternarrative in circulation for a long time now — mostly among our left-leaning brothers and sisters — that seeks to discredit conservative church leaders from the 60’s through the 80’s. It’s built primarily on cherry-picked data that is shown in the worst possible light with very little reference to the good that was accomplished by said church leaders.
I think perhaps one of the reasons for the resurgence of McConkie on latter-day saint blogs and other forums is because people are tired of the of the false narrative.
Now I for one am not a fan of systematic theology. Nevertheless, “Mormon Doctrine” provided the most comprehensive scriptural compendium of church doctrine that the saints had ever seen. There was no internet–let alone home computers–in those days–and the saints went gaga over MD perhaps more because of its practical usage as a guide to the scriptures than for its theological content.
Having said that–yes–McConkie’s theology certainly did influence the church–but his views weren’t radical. What he and other like-minded leaders did was shore up the church against the social upheaval that washed over the West like a tsunami on those days.
So, yes, both he and Joseph Fielding Smith may have been wrong about the science of organic evolution–but they were right to fight tooth and nail to preserve the notion of God as the creator and the divine lineage of Adam and so forth. That was the locus of the conflict between science and religion in those days–and it was necessary to openly declare that evolution was inadequate as an explanation for our beginnings as children of God.
I hope my comment isn’t too harsh. There’s a lot more that could be said–but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Jack, you seem to have a sound and reasonable perspective.
In defense of Elder McConkie’s doctrinal teachings, and also his book Mormon Doctrine (minus a few entries), I will simply include the following statements that speak for themselves:
Elder Dallin H. Oaks speaking with Elder McConkie, whom he had asked to review a temple dedication address. When Elder McConkie finished, they talked. “Then he enthusiastically and fervently clapped me on the shoulders with his huge hands . . . grinned his big grin and said, ‘But the best thing about this talk is that it shows the direction you are taking. It is a genuinely doctrinal talk. It is apostolic!’ I was so pleased at this comment about my talk as I do wish to understand and expound doctrine, and there is no living Apostle whom I respect more in that sphere than Bruce R. McConkie. I told him I wanted to be one who preaches doctrine.”
Oscar W. McConkie Jr:
“When I determined to retire from Kirton and McConkie [the Church’s law firm], I was in my 85th year. I went to the First Presidency meeting to advise the First Presidency. As always, President Monson was kind to me and praised my lawyering. This was at a time when a book had been published about President David O. McKay in which it was falsely stated that Bruce had republished his book Mormon Doctrine without President McKay’s consent. President Monson went out of his way to say, so that it would be in the recorded minutes of the First Presidency, ‘Bruce and I got President McKay’s permission to republish Bruce’s Mormon Doctrine.’”
Spencer W. Kimball regarding BRM as they toured Central America together:
“The missionary class having been given to me on Sat, it was given to Pres. McConkie this morning and the missionaries asked questions. My companion is clear in his explanations, concise, well read, and has a great memory. The missionaries were entranced as I was.”
Pres. Nelson:
“Elder Bruce R. McConkie was a great friend. His door was always open to me, and I frequently imposed upon his graciousness, asking him questions that possibly only he could answer.”
Pres. Nelson quoted by Church News:
President Nelson reflected on the support he received from other members of the quorum when he was called to serve among them. He spoke of Elder Bruce R. McConkie in particular. “Occasionally, I would have an idea I wanted to discuss or had a question. I would knock on his door, and he was always gracious, always warmly welcoming. When I could see this was an opportunity to learn from him, I would ask him to put his remarks on pause for a minute while I called Elder Oaks and asked him to come up so we could converse with Elder McConkie together. That was a rare privilege.
Seems our current First Presidency have a high opinion of Elder McConkie and his doctrine. This fact will not persuade some, but such is still the case.
I think that there is truth in what most people have shared here in the last few comments. As Dennis points out, the current First Presidency members are indeed Bruce R. McConkie fans, were mentored by him, and have incorporated aspects of his theology into their teachings (President Nelson in particular).
I personally agree with rogerdhansen’s assessment of Bruce R. McConkie’s unfortunately successful influence in advocating for anti-science, racist, and quasi-Evangelical views in the Church and the harm that has caused. (I am a biologist and intellectual, after all.)
Still, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and ignore the good aspects of his ministry. Hence, I think Jack has hit on some good insight as well in stating that there were important parts of shoring up the Church that McConkie and his colleagues accomplished through their work. That was a big reason that I appreciated Devery’s even-handedness in his biography of McConkie and the fact that he did incorporate more of the perspective that Dennis has shared about the publication of the second edition of Mormon Doctrine in his discussion of the issue than Greg Prince did.