This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[ERCougar]

My problem is when you read in John 17:3


How can you know God without knowing the nature of who or what he/she is?

I feel like I know a lot of you without having any clue what you look like.

[Mormon Red Death]

Great post.

I have had the same depressing thoughts. We have four instructors that rotate and most of them spend the entire 40 minutes giving a sermon rather than leading a discussion. One guy pimps a book he wrote almost every time he teaches. Another guy gives primary-level lessons (I kid you not - he breathlessly read the "footprints in the sand" poem one week as if he was sharing a great new treasure with us). Another guy is a BRM-JFS style, ultra-orthodox hardliner that is unbearable. Our current HPG leader is a friend of mine so I griped to him about the lessons long enough that he called arguably our most liberal member to be an instructor to balance things out a bit. This guy teaches great lessons and gets everyone involved and asks thoughtful but sensitive questions. So for one week per month, it is great. The other three weeks I get to catch up on my reading.

Nice humblebrag...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nice humblebrag...

Ha. No, it isn't me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There is a sister in our ward who is very bright and while quite orthodox seems to be very open-minded and willing to explore ideas. I made a comment last week in SS about some historical tidbit associated with the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. I had 4-5 people come up afterwards and ask about what I said and I mentioned that I learned the detail from Harrell's book. This week she pulled me aside and said that she bought the book and is a few chapters in and is deeply troubled by it. I decided that I need to be careful about who I recommend it to (although I didn't really recommend it, I just mentioned it as a source). It certainly isn't for everyone.

[pellegrino]

There is a sister in our ward who is very bright and while quite orthodox seems to be very open-minded and willing to explore ideas. I made a comment last week in SS about some historical tidbit associated with the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. I had 4-5 people come up afterwards and ask about what I said and I mentioned that I learned the detail from Harrell's book. This week she pulled me aside and said that she bought the book and is a few chapters in and is deeply troubled by it. I decided that I need to be careful about who I recommend it to (although I didn't really recommend it, I just mentioned it as a source). It certainly isn't for everyone.

So, two questions:

1- What was the historical tidbit you shared about the Oath and the Covenant? (sorry, haven't read the book, don't have time right now)

2- What did you do to assuage the fears of the sister you mentioned?

The second question is perhaps the more important one because I feel that books like this (even if I haven't read it I understand its potential) should be for everyone, regardless of their level of orthodoxy. I realize that may be difficult for some (like the sister in question) but if we pride ourselves on being truth seekers, we can't exactly shy away from discussing books like this simply because it may be troubling.

that said, I'm interested in the historical tidbit too.

[Harry Tic]

The second question is perhaps the more important one because I feel that books like this (even if I haven't read it I understand its potential) should be for everyone, regardless of their level of orthodoxy. I realize that may be difficult for some (like the sister in question) but if we pride ourselves on being truth seekers, we can't exactly shy away from discussing books like this simply because it may be troubling.

I don't know, Pellegrino. I remember a story about Wittgenstein talking philosophy with some patient in a hospital, some amateur who knew very little. When his friend Norman Malcolm (?) wondered why Wittgenstein had let so many questionable assumptions pass, Wittgenstein responded, "You don't play badminton with a tennis racket."

There's a time and a place and an audience for Harrell's book and, in most cases, it doesn't include sweet little old grandmothers in Relief Society. There still is, I think, a relevant distinction to be made between milk and meat (even if our correlated diet is pretty much a lactose intolerant's nightmare). I would recommend Harrell's book to some friends but definitely not to others.

EDIT: my point is not all connected to Leboswski's decision to mention the book to the sister in his ward. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe not. I'm making a more general point.

[pellegrino]

I don't know, Pellegrino. I remember a story about Wittgenstein talking philosophy with some patient in a hospital, some amateur who knew very little. When his friend Norman Malcolm (?) wondered why Wittgenstein had let so many questionable assumptions pass, Wittgenstein responded, "You don't play badminton with a tennis racket."

There's a time and a place and an audience for Harrell's book and, in most cases, it doesn't include sweet little old grandmothers in Relief Society. There still is, I think, a relevant distinction to be made between milk and meat (even if our correlated diet is pretty much a lactose intolerant's nightmare). I would recommend Harrell's book to some friends but definitely not to others.

EDIT: my point is not all connected to Leboswski's decision to mention the book to the sister in his ward. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe not. I'm making a more general point.

Point taken, and perhaps I should explain better. I think books like this SHOULD be for everyone. I realize that it is not. Everyone's perceptions and positions should be challenged on some level. It appears that this sister's were, and that she was on the wrong end of your badminton analogy. This can happen to anyone, not just those who happened to be caught standing in in the path of the Lebowski faith wrecker on a Sunday afternoon.

How we respond to those who have been pummeled by a shuttlecock launched with the force of a tennis racket will determine their future attitudes about badminton or even this new fangled game called tennis. I want to know what Lebowski did to respond to her questions. It is my hope that he was able to help her out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So, two questions:

1- What was the historical tidbit you shared about the Oath and the Covenant? (sorry, haven't read the book, don't have time right now)

The context for the comment was we were discussing the oath and covenant of the priesthood in Section 84 and people were sharing various views and interpretations and I raised my hand and said that if you look at the wording of the section, there is a shift in tone around verse 35. Prior to that, the emphasis is on "obtaining" the priesthood. After that, the emphasis is on "receiving" the priesthood and the blessings that come from doing so ("all my father hath"), but given the way it is worded, one could interpret "receive" not as equivalent to "obtain", but rather as accepting and following priesthood leadership (see vs 36 in particular). In other words, the blessings associated with the oath and covenant are not restricted to those who obtain the priesthood. In fact, in the early days of the church, this was a widely held interpretation and there are quotes from Orson Pratt, George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow to that effect. Not sure how earth-shattering that is, but it is kind of interesting.

2- What did you do to assuage the fears of the sister you mentioned?

I rambled like an idiot, of course. I said some good things and some dumb things. I hope she remembers the good things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Point taken, and perhaps I should explain better. I think books like this SHOULD be for everyone. I realize that it is not. Everyone's perceptions and positions should be challenged on some level. It appears that this sister's were, and that she was on the wrong end of your badminton analogy. This can happen to anyone, not just those who happened to be caught standing in in the path of the Lebowski faith wrecker on a Sunday afternoon.

How we respond to those who have been pummeled by a shuttlecock launched with the force of a tennis racket will determine their future attitudes about badminton or even this new fangled game called tennis. I want to know what Lebowski did to respond to her questions. It is my hope that he was able to help her out.

I think she was expecting your typical Deseret Book-type fare, especially given the fact that it was written by a BYU prof. The book is neither polemic nor apologetic, but it is a brutally honest portayal of the genesis of LDS doctrines without any hand-holding. Had I known she was going to run out and buy it, I think I would have taken some time to prep her for it. Then again, maybe that wouldn't have made any difference.

[Harry Tic]

I think she was expecting your typical Deseret Book-type fare, especially given the fact that it was written by a BYU prof. The book is neither polemic nor apologetic, but it is a brutally honest portayal of the genesis of LDS doctrines without any hand-holding. Had I known she was going to run out and buy it, I think I would have taken some time to prep her for it. Then again, maybe that wouldn't have made any difference.

What's the world coming to when you can't even trust a freaking BYU professor to reliably generate Deseret Book-type content? These are dark times indeed.