Just curious as to why this is such a fascinating subject to you? Especially since McConkie gave a disclaimer at the front of the book, stating that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and spiritual interpretations.
_____________________________________________________
Mormon Doctrine (1958–2010), RIP.
May 24, 2010 8:40:38 PM MDT · by Colofornian · 3 replies · 105+ views
Landmark ‘Mormon Doctrine’ goes out of print
May 22, 2010 9:07:38 AM MDT · by Colofornian · 26 replies · 287+ views
Publisher Stops Printing Popular LDS Book
May 20, 2010 6:42:37 PM MDT · by Colofornian · 23 replies · 259+ views
The first thread was a bare-bones TV news version of the article. No details. Kind of like how you'll hear a "breaking news" bare-bones story -- and just to get it into circulation, you'll post it.
I knew then some other news source would come out with a more fuller explanation of it. Peggy Fletcher Stack did with the Salt Lake Trib. A credible journalist; a credible newspaper; and so I posted it because as Stack said:
"Mormon Doctrine served two generations of the Mormon rank and file as the main authoritative source of LDS teachings," said LDS sociologist Armand Mauss. "With its authoritative tone and constant promotion from high places, it came to be regularly cited in the church curriculum, especially in [Church Educational System] materials, and soon took on almost a scriptural stature."..."The book became one of the all-time best-sellers in Mormondom," they wrote, "achieving the near-canonical status..."
So, Rip, exactly how many books can you say have achieved the recognition level of "almost...scriptural stature...near canonical status" in Mormondom?
I mean the only other book I can think of is the 1833 Book of Commandments, which was then withdrawn as Mormon "scripture."
Of all the articles, this one had by far the best cultural assessment headline (coupled with the last two lines) of what this represents -- what is happening within the Mormon movement: Last two lines -- A book that due to its authoritative presentation and doctrinal fundamentalism gave many Mormons reasons for grief. Mormon Doctrine (1958 – 2010), RIP
You see, Mormon leaders aren't simply taking a book out of circulation. There's more to this than a mere inventory decision. It really is a death knell to the more fundamentalist wing of the Mormon church -- the hardline camp that was stridently and virulently anti-Christian.
I compare it to some of the softening in anti-Christian theology within the old RLDS sect. Through the years, they've made an attempt to try, in some ways, to become more biblical. But since they still embrace Smith, there's only so far that they can move.
McConkie gave a disclaimer at the front of the book, stating that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and spiritual interpretations.
You're funny. Harold B. Lee assigned Spencer W. Kimball to closely review McConkie's revision process of the 1966 revision. If Kimball had not checked off on it, then Lee would have reverted to McKay's position.
As Stack wrote in the Tribune: McKay feared that if the corrections were made, it would seriously affect McConkie's credibility, so he preferred not to see the book republished at all.
So let me give you a parallel illustration:
Let's say one of the top 15 leaders in the Vatican writes a book in 1958 called "Roman Catholic Doctrine."
Let's say that because the author called the Protestants "the whore of Babylon," along with more than 1,000 other changes it needed, the Pope ordered that it be taken off the shelves.
But then the next Pope assigned his second-in-charge to review a revision. It was "signed off" on -- and revised -- and republished...with everyone knowing it came direct from the Vatican. Then, in the ensuing years, whenever the Vatican came out with church resources/curricula, this book was cited. Eventually, even though the book was published by a publisher not directly connected with the Vatican, its final round of publishing for 18 straight years was under the direct oversight of the Vatican.
And now you want to tell me that...
...the Vatican had nothing to do with previewing the book;
...or "OKing" the book for republishing;
...or that the Pope had no authority to pull it off the shelves again if it really misrepresented Catholic doctrine;
...or that it's somehow sheer happenstance that the Vatican quoted this book over & over & over & over again in its church resources, magazines, curricula, etc;
...or that it's somehow irrelevant that the Vatican owns the book publishing company of where the book has been published and promoted for the past 18 years...
...and that the Vatican really wasn't responsible for previewing, reviewing, revising, re-publishing, publishing, promoting, or sanctioning the book...
...it was all part of a lone-nut "no conspiracy" author theory...
...Other than those "small details"...hmm...let me ponder your tidbit offering as a possibility...for about 3 seconds...
Uhhh...Nope! (Doesn't "compute")
Like any malicious-minded bully, she gets her strength from hiding behind a mask, and refuses to disclose what specific church she belongs to. She will tell you "Christian", but won't prove it. Just one small example of why the government will soon take over the internet to prevent anyone being anonymous anymore, because miscreants use that anonymity for negative purposes.
Don't you READ the fine print?
It’s because he has an obsession. Imagine if he used all this energy for something good.