McConkie had the right idea, but he wasn't the man for the job

[SeattleUte]

I can understand McConkie's urge to create an encyclical-like document synthesizing the crazy-quilt that is Mormon Doctrine. The problem was he wasn't the man for the job. Such a document needs to be written elegantly though with the discipline, precision and dryness of a diplomatic dispatch, and adroitly recognizing the mysteries. He was far too pompous and verbose.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I can understand McConkie's urge to create an encyclical-like document synthesizing the crazy-quilt that is Mormon Doctrine. The problem was he wasn't the man for the job. Such a document needs to be written elegantly though with the discipline, precision and dryness of a diplomatic dispatch, and adroitly recognize the mysteries. He was far too pompous and verbose.

I disagree with both statements.

The idea of setting forth a book that contains a definitive answer to every gospel question is inherently un-mormon. The church started off with the idea that unleashing a creed-like fiat to quell all debates is the wrong way to go about it.

For all of his errors in writing "Mormon Doctrine," Bruce R. McKonkie is probably the only person in recent LDS history that I think would come close to achieving what would have to be done with such an ambitious project. He fell short much less because of his inabilities, and much more because the entire project was over-ambitious.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I disagree with both statements.

The idea of setting forth a book that contains a definitive answer to every gospel question is inherently un-mormon. The church started off with the idea that unleashing a creed-like fiat to quell all debates is the wrong way to go about it.

For all of his errors in writing "Mormon Doctrine," Bruce R. McKonkie is probably the only person in recent LDS history that I think would come close to achieving what would have to be done with such an ambitious project. He fell short much less because of his inabilities, and much more because the entire project was over-ambitious.

I disagree with both of you! I think the project probably couldn't have been done, and if it could have been, McConkie wouldn't have been a good choice for the project. He was far too eager to write LDS canon as he wanted it to be rather than as it was.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I disagree with both of you! I think the project probably couldn't have been done, and if it could have been, McConkie wouldn't have been a good choice for the project. He was far too eager to write LDS canon as he wanted it to be rather than as it was.

He wouldn't have been a good choice for the project, it is true; not because he wasn't as qualified as any, but because the project itself is beyond the scope of any individual.

Who would you want to have the assignment of writing "Mormon Doctrine"? No cheating by saying "Hinckley"-- that's too easy.

[ute4ever]

What do you think of McConkie organizing the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith into the Doctrines of Salvation volumes? Personally, I find the series to be more helpful and on-point than any other "church" publication.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I disagree with both of you! I think the project probably couldn't have been done, and if it could have been, McConkie wouldn't have been a good choice for the project. He was far too eager to write LDS canon as he wanted it to be rather than as it was.

Amen. And while we're deMcConkieizing the church, can we redo the Bible Dictionary?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Amen. And while we're deMcConkieizing the church, can we redo the Bible Dictionary?

Agreed. The current Bible dictionary is largely based on a very old (I believe end of the 19th century) Cambridge bible dictionary. The reason why the scripture committee could freely modify it was I think because by that point it was in the public domain. In my view it could really use an update.

Robert J. Matthews, “Using the New Bible Dictionary in the LDS Edition,” Ensign, Jun 1982, 47:

For nearly half a century the Church has used an edition of the Bible published by Cambridge University in England. This was called the Missionary Edition, and it contained a Bible dictionary prepared by Cambridge scholars. Although that dictionary presented much helpful information, it was deemed advisable to produce a new dictionary that was more useful to Latter-day Saints. Though based on the Cambridge work, the Bible Dictionary in the new LDS edition differs from it in several important ways:

Additional Topics. First, new topics were added to broaden the scope of the dictionary and include insights available through latter-day revelation. Among the dozens of new topics are: Aaronic Priesthood; Dispensations; Dove, Sign of; Ephraim, Stick of; Holy One of Israel; Judah, Stick of; Joseph Smith Translation; Knowledge; Melchizedek Priesthood; and War in Heaven.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

He wouldn't have been a good choice for the project, it is true; not because he wasn't as qualified as any, but because the project itself is beyond the scope of any individual.

Who would you want to have the assignment of writing "Mormon Doctrine"? No cheating by saying "Hinckley"-- that's too easy.

I don't think any single person could do it. It would take a committee, some of whom would have to be apostles, I think. Of course, this assumes it would be possible for a committee (and I am not sure that is true).

[Archaea]

The concept of a Mormon doctrinal dissertation is at odds with the very gnostic nature of LDS doctrines and policies. It was a bad idea, especially for somebody with his cultural and intellectual background and connections. A Hugh B. Brown would have bettter able to start such a project.

LDS would be better served if collections of discussions a la Journal of Discourses were compounded, with scholarly commentary.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think any single person could do it. It would take a committee, some of whom would have to be apostles, I think. Of course, this assumes it would be possible for a committee (and I am not sure that is true).

I was just reading this thread thinking through how that would work. Of course you would need the oversight of at least one apostle (think of how upset many would be if it were BKP only, for example) but none of the brethren are going to have time to do anything here in depth. Rather, a large committee would have to be formed that could do entries and recommend them for adoption.

Now who would have the time and interest to do that sort of work? I can't think of anyone other than our friends in the world of CES. Maybe the religion department at BYU? Maybe some FARMS types? Think of the biases that would be contained in the work from the get go if any of those group or any combination of them were selected. Would anyone remotely controversial in their view points be invited to help?

Then assume that they were soomehow able to put this thing together. Would it be put out for review or comment? I wouldn't think so, which would leave it then up to the apostle or apostles to review. Again, they probably don't have time and covering such a huge area as LDS doctrine would be unlikely to agree on everything. So who resolves those disputes? GBH? Does he have the time or energy for that?

I'm just thinking outloud here, but my first thoughts are that it would very difficult to do under any circumstances and would likely contain the biases of whoever writes the first draft. Think of the endless bickering there would be over whether this or that part of it is correct. Think of the fodder it would give to antis.

I think we are better off without it. It is true that our doctrine is nebulous in many areas, but I think there is consensus on many if not most of the important areas. Additionally, the status quo allows room for many view points under a big tent and IMO this is better. I just do see any systematic way to put this thing together with the direct imput of one with authority. Maybe that is one reason it hasn't happened.