In Defense of Elder McConkie

Our friend and co-blogger Ryan recently raised some questions concerning the veracity of two points of doctrine allegedly taught by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine. Both doctrines were ascribed to Elder McConkie by a gospel doctrine teacher in Southern California - who apparently takes the liberty of referring to Mormon Doctrine for substantive class material. The two points are: 1.) In the millennium, Satan will be bound, but the binding will not necessarily be due to the righteousness of the people, rather it will be a physical binding place upon him; and 2.) “All things” will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium. I would like to respond to these points and come to the defense of Elder McConkie because after actually looking into these issues I think there has been some general mischaracterization and misunderstanding.

First, it is common knowledge in the Church that Satan will indeed be bound during the millennium, but the manner and mode of this binding is not so clear. After reading the Millennium entry in Mormon Doctrine myself, I have to say I agree with McConkie’s view. He states, “The plan does not call for men to turn voluntarily to righteousness thereby causing the thousand year era of peace to commence. Rather, the millennium will be brought about by power; the wicked will be destroyed; and those only will remain on earth who are sufficiently righteous to abide the day of the Lord’s coming….” Referring to Nephi’s statement about the righteousness of the people as the binding force, McConkie says Nephi’s proclamation refers to “the period after the commencement of the millennium.” This makes perfect sense to me. It’s only logical that the binding of Satan can only initially occur as the result of a force other than the righteousness of the people on earth - it is also common knowledge that the world will only get more wicked as we near the millennium, not vice versa. However, after the wicked have been destroyed and Satan has been bound through this power of God, then I think the righteousness of those who remain will prevent him from having “power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness” (1 Ne. 22:26). Therefore, I think it is correct to say that the power of God and the righteousness of the people will bind Satan.

Second, upon first hearing that someone claimed “all things” will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium, it was hard for me not to laugh. Furthermore, after thinking about it I became even more sure that this claim cannot be true - in fact, the allegation that this was taught by Elder McConkie is what actually got me to crack open Mormon Doctrine for myself. And, for the record, Elder McConkie did NOT teach that! He distinguishes between a fullness of the gospel and a fullness of the truth. We have the fullness of the gospel because we have all the saving truths and power to obtain the Celestial Kingdom; but we obviously don’t have a fullness of the truth because, as he puts it, “many glorious gospel doctrines have been known and taught in previous despensations which have not as yet been restored to us.” He then quotes Acts 3:21, and uses this language: “But with the dawning of the millennium, the restoration of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,’ shall be completed.” Thus, it is true that “all” things will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium, but the word all refers to everything that has previously been revealed in past dispensations to men on earth - NOT all truth, rather all previously revealed “gospel truth”.

Personally, I think McConkie all too often gets a “bad rap” from a lot of “intellectual” members. This is so because either they don’t read him right, or because the majority of average members typically refer to McConkie as their source for authority and spout off their own understanding of what McConkie has written (gospel doctrine teacher example sited above) and then the intellectuals simply dismiss McConkie as a General Authority who opined too much. As a result, there is an unfortunate disconnect between some Mormon thinkers and the excellent scholarship McConkie has left behind (it’s unfortunate because I don’t know of any “doctrine” he got wrong other than the infamous blacks and the priesthood claim). So, I’ve decided to become a McConkie defender.

As for the length of the millennium being a thousand years, could this be a symbolic number? I know numbers are quite symbolic. I’ve always wondered about the “coincidence” of the whole 40 days and 40 nights thing: Moses in the mount, Christ in the wilderness, Noah in the ark, etc… Any thoughts on this?