Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"
 

The generation that raised me used to believe in something like the infallibility of General Authorities. This was a useful belief, employed, inter alia, as fall back to explain (superficially) the inexplicable re many once closet-bound skeletons. Since "Mormon Doctrine" pragmatic Mormons must acknowledge that their apostles and prophets are very capable of not only error, but downright foolishness, backwardness, mendacity, and purveying downright evil and false creed. There is no other explanation for "Mormon Doctrine" regardless of your status with the Mormon church, if you have more than an ounce of pragmatism. "Mormon Doctrine" is an embarrassment of staggering proportions. It just is. This is ironic considering how revered McConkie was by the generation that raised me.

I note that "Mormon Doctrine" was McConkie's work but he was a senior apostle and the title and tone of this work are nothing if not authoritative sounding, and no one stood up to denounce it. No one who counts has still ever stood up to denounce it.

I've never gotten used to the condescending and critical comments younger Mormons now routinely apply to McConkie, as a superficial fall back to explaining the inexplicable, though it appears some younger Mormons take this reality for granted. To me this paradigm shift is astonishing.

McConkie was a Seventy when he published the first edition and I don't believe he ever became a "senior" apostle. You make some valid points, but you polish it up too much by ad libbing on some of your points. He was a son-in-law of a prophet which added to his position, at least psychologically.

If I remember correctly, the book was published years before he was called as the quorum's junior-most apostle.

See what I mean? The strategy now is always to attack McConkie, kill the messenger. He and his reputation and credentials must be attacked for the greater good.

In this case, the messenger is you. Don't jump all over me for pointing out inaccuracies in your statements.

The calculus on a seventy publishing a book with inaccuracies is quite different from that of a senior apostle doing the same.

You simply misstated what McConkie was. He was NOT a senior apostle EVER and he certainly was NOT when he published his first edition. That's not an attack on McConkie but a correction of fact.

He was merely a Seventy who happened to marry a high ranking leader's daughter.

I'm going to have to agree with SU's general point. I don't a agree with the infallibility talk or his other specifics, but Mormon Doctrine is a hugely unfluential book. Did you guys see the BYU studies article a few years ago? "Which Are the Most Important Mormon Books?" In the survey, Mormon Doctrine is #2 in the Doctrinal books category. The survey is of primarily BYU religion and CES teachers so it is going to skew conservative, but I don't think more conservative than the average member.
And this article is from 2002, not 1982.

See: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...PTR=4292&REC=1

I am struggling to understand what his general point is. Perhaps you can help me.

I thought it was that Mormon Doctrine was a very important book and people in the church thought very highly of it before SU left. It was close to the standard reference work on doctrine. Did I incorrectly see through SU's hyperbole?

He was a member of the 12 for 13 years. I wasn't aware that there was such a formal status as "senior apostle." MD was in publication all that time. I believe he was one of the oldest and longest tenured apostles when he died.