Back in the day, before the internet, both Dialogue and Sunstone magazines were pretty much the only game in town for nuanced/progressive Mormons (and yes we were called Mormons back then). I was cleaning out some old files, and found a photocopied page from a Nov-Dec 1981 Sunstone. They had an “Update” feature each month where they would give news type information about the Church. I wondered why I had photocopied this page, but then understood as I began to read it. The “Update” gave a report of Elder McConkie’s talk he gave at a BYU leadership meeting on 31 Oct, 1981. In attendance was the presidencies and bishops of the 14 stakes of BYU. I don’t think this was reported in any detail anywhere else.
Sunstone reported that Elder McConkie spoke extemporaneously, and stopped to ask for questions. He told the leaders to help the students to be well rounded individuals, and to find a balance between spiritual and intellectual concerns. “We don’t want the pendulum to swing too far one way or the other” he said. He cautioned against religious fads, extremism, and that fanaticism or over-zealousness could do more harm than good.
He told the leaders that the students came to BYU to get an education, “not to attend a student ward or stake.” He told them that students may need to turn down a calling due to their class load, and that he was released by his bishop when he was in law school, his bishop telling him a law student was too busy.
He told them that leaders should not prohibit students from studying on Sunday. He said “extremism” in Sunday worship is a sign of apostacy, and that students should use their own judgment. I’m guessing that he studied on Sunday while in law school!
He discouraged the practice of praying on dates, saying this develops a relationship that should only exist between husbands and wives. I see some typical BRM coming through here. But then he put on his rational hat and said that members should choose their marriage partners based on personal judgment, not requiring heavenly revelation in the matter. I wonder if somebody from the Q15 to get away from saying the same thing today to BYU students?
He then reverted back to the BRM we know and love and warned against developing a personal relationship with Christ. We should only worship the Father. He went on to say that the Second Coming of Christ was not imminent. He said in his opinion Christ will not come in the lifetime of anyone present. He was asked by an audience member about people with patriartical blessings promising them they would see the Lord. He said he did not have a satisfactory explanation. When asked if the audience might quote him on this subject, he said “You will anyway!”
He finished by warning the leaders to be very discreet in interviews, and not to plant ideas in people’s heads. Also they should avoid a witch-hunting attitude when discussing which sins should be confessed to a bishop. He also said that sometimes long years of faithful Church service will wipe out an “ancient sin” that should not be dragged out from the person.
So what do you think about this BRM? I’m sure readers of this Wheat & Tares will agree with much of what he said as being very pragmatic. Have you heard other Church leaders give similar counsel?
Wheat & Tares 
Fun fact: his youngest daughter was the wife of my mission president. BRM was quoted so frequently during my mission that many of my fellow Elders joked that his words were the 5th standard work of the church.
But seriously though, for him to frankly admit that he and former prophets “spoke with limited understanding” when it came to the priesthood ban was both surprising and admirable. Can you imagine a prophet or apostle today bluntly saying, “hey, we were wrong on this certain thing, so let’s turn the page and move forward?”
What this seems to show is that what LDS leaders speak in public meetings and in General Conference is quite possibly not how the speak in more private settings. (That is, Elder McConkie was much more reasonable behind closed doors than he came across in public statements, and we can generalize to other LDS leaders as well.) They may, in fact, think about LDS doctrine, history, and issues much differently than they let on in their public statements. Ponderize this, and what comes out is you can’t really rely on what is said in Conference as “what Elder X really thinks.” Who knows what they really think?
I remember that talk with fondness. His son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, a BYU religion teacher at the time, told me about it. Joseph said the leaders were stunned that BRM gave counsel counter to what so many zealous local leaders were giving. Described them as “passing out in the aisles.” The last time we had someone admit to operating under imperfect knowledge was President Uchtdorf. We need more reminders.
What do I think about BRM, not many positive things at all.
My huband and I met him several times and it was not so much as what he said but how he treated people.
Hmmm, if there is any truth to the thought that some Latter-day Saints uncharitably beat other Saints over the head on “dogmatic” matters, is it fair to observe that Elder McConkie’s words (or derivatives) are very, very often used as the club? Does he bear any responsibility for the use of his words by others, or the culture to which his words contributed so significantly?
What your piece seems to imply is that there’s another more reasonable side to BRM that members did not see. And I guess this makes sense when you consider that most members saw BRM in a General Conference setting. GC talks are typically the marketing material for the Church, both internally and externally, so we don’t get a lot of diversity of opinion there (anymore).
The problem with this image of a more “reasonable” BRM is that he thought so highly of himself that he wrote a book (Mormon Doctrine) that he was counselled against writing by other Q15 members. It was so bad that it had to be recalled. Can you imagine a current Q15 member doing this today?
But like he said, his place was to instruct and our place was to agree or shut up.
Interesting stuff. I’ve heard slightly similar stories of other General Authorities.
My grandpa went to high school with BRM and even went on a couple of double dates with him. Although my grandpa moved out of state in adulthood, they remained on a first name basis. My grandpa said he was a very cheerful person. I’ve heard stories that he was also a practical joker among the twelve, and that he would have loved nothing more than to give more cheerful conference talks, but felt he was more or less supposed to emphasize the importance and seriousness of repentance.
Even with all his imperfections (and that of most general authorities for that matter), I still see a man who was just doing his best to do what he thought and felt was right.
I think we should take BRM’s tone in this address to BYU leaders and apply it. A little kindness and flexibility all around would do little harm in this crazy world. Heaven knows there have been an abundance of application of his harsher and less gentle pronouncements.
The not having a relationship with Christ v. Hymn 134, which I understand is his final conference address. Can we take it he softened on that?
This was construed by many to be a shot at Stephen R covey who wrote and taught a class about putting Christ at the center of your life. Jealousy perhaps?
BRM was used as a weapon when I was bishop whenever I tried to do anything progressive. A fairly large number of faithful LDS still think that Mormon Doctrine is in fact… doctrine. He may have been doing his best but at that high of a level his best better be pretty damn good.
Q15 are sort of like CEOs, generals, etc. Their words mean something and they impact the lives of regular people in real ways. In my view BRM did more harm than good.
Does it matter what a general authority says at a general conference or in a private setting? Members always seem to have a debate about whether what they said is true or fits with what has been said before and they end up finding something that someone else has said at another time that contradicts what was just said and then because they have a testimony of the one and only true church, they believe what they want to believe. Pres. Nelson talking about vaccines and masks being dismissed by so many members (and leaders) in the church is just one example of the egotism of someone’s testimony.
I’ve heard this more than once but can’t find a source, but apparently BRM demanded that the melody for Hymn 134 be repeated twice for each verse. That way the eight stanzas of his poem became four verses and none were relegated to the bottom of the page—so every damn word is sung every time. Sigh. One thing that didn’t soften was his sense of his own importance.
This is only the second time I’ve done this and both times, my comment gets stuck in moderation. Can someone tell me why? Thank you.
He gave a similar devotional talk to students that I caught. He started with discussing being shipwrecked with a case of whiskey and how you should drink the whiskey rather than starve.
Then he went on to tell students they could study in Sunday.
He did suffer from being a lawyer at heart, but his hallmark was serving when and where others would not when serving was a great sacrifice.
Dot, the way I heard the story it was the composer that decided to combine two stanzas together for each verse.
I’ll try again. Bruce R McConkie was supposedly aiming his talk toward Stephen R Covey who, at the time, was a BYU professor with a big following. Covey talked about developing a relationship with God, putting Christ at the center of your life, etc. I had a class with him which was excellent. Jealousy on Bruce’s part, perhaps?
To be honest, I tire of insider anecdotes of kinder, gentler, more pragmatic versions of past and present GA’s (nothing personal against the author of the OP, of course). As other commenters have pointed out, the general membership only gets the strict, dogmatic version of BRM (or any given GA). For Mormons who put a great deal of weight on everything these guys say and base many of their life decisions on those words (I’m not one of them), this is not fair. Why should the general membership be held to a different standard than how they really act and why shouldn’t we expect their public selves to be their authentic selves?
BRM’s remarks stand in stark contrast to a fairly recent address by an apostle primarily aimed at an audience of BYU faculty. Elder Holland’s “musket fire” talk made very clear, among other things, that spiritual education was the primary and foremost mission of BYU, even at the possible cost of institutional credibility and accreditation. But like BRM, he furthermore made some very forceful, dogmatic pronouncements that he possibly would not have made had he known the talk would reach a much wider audience than it was intended for. I wonder if Elder Holland was present when BRM delivered that talk, being president of BYU at the time. If he was, it clearly didn’t have much impact.
And yes, it highlights the ongoing observations that apostles present different versions of themselves for different audiences. And that is something that most normal people do in their daily lives. But most of us will only ever know the “GC” version of these men, which seems to be the most dull, vapid version of themselves by default. Perhaps that is just a consequence of the expectation of apostles to be all things to all people (i.e. being a special witness of Christ to the whole world). It sets all of them up for failure in some way or another, and is certainly not fair to the rank-and-file members who are affected by their decisions and pronouncements.
I think my favorite example of spiritual pragmatism was at a convert baptism on my mission. We found out after giving this convert her confirmation that there had been a mistake on the way her name had been said during the baptism earlier in the evening. The bishop’s face went white, worried we’d have to do it all over again even though the service was over and people were having refreshments and going home. An older, wiser member of the bishopric looked at the bishop and us missionaries and said, “No, not necessary. I saw her baptized. You each saw her baptized. We’re baptizing people, not names.”
I was at BYU during this time and remember that BRM’s admonition was thought to be directed towards Glenn L. Pace who had a new book out about developing our relationship with Christ. I thought his words were pretty harsh and I felt bad for bro. Pace. I thought it ironic that he was so harsh when he himself had faced a chewing out by the brethren over his mis-doctrine in his book years earlier. I’ve heard it said of Bro. M that like all of us, he had his faults, but that uncertainty wasn’t one of them. But I did enjoy one of his talks as a young scout that had a positive influence on my life.
I think there’s food for thought here about our Sunday selves being consistent with our rest of the week selves.
One reasonable, private talk doesn’t undo decades of hubris, false doctrine, racism, and priestcraft.
Similar to ColoradoChloe’s story, a family friend of ours had a story of hearing BRM talk shortly after our friend’s convert baptism. He said BRM was so offensively arrogant and rude, and “chased the spirit of the meeting away” so thoroughly that our friend thought, if he hadn’t already committed to the church through baptism, his experience with BRM might have been enough to drive him away.
I hated this guy when I was a teenager (when Mormon Doctrine was at the height of it’s glory) and I still loathe him today. So much hubris, so much self absorption, so much shame, so much “chest pounding”……May he (not) rest in peace.
To clear things up it wasn’t Steven Covey or Glenn L. Pace, it was George W. Pace