This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Paperback Writer]

Interesting stuff. One small correction.

JS sees a vision of his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom even though he had not been baptized and died as a child. JS reveals that all those who die in ignorance of the gospel “who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom” (D&C 137:7).

Alvin Smith was 25 when he died; however, he had not been baptized. His passing had significant impact on the Smith family and its finances as Alvin had been very industrious and was instrumental in trying to get the Smith family out of debt. (Most of this comes from Bushman's RSR). The dead Alvin Smith is also part of the "Salamander Letter" saga.

[Northwestcoug]

Wow, JL, that's super interesting. Thanks for your work. There's a lot more 'official' contradictions in the concept of the afterlife than most members want to admit.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting stuff. One small correction.

Alvin Smith was 25 when he died; however, he had not been baptized. His passing had significant impact on the Smith family and its finances as Alvin had been very industrious and was instrumental in trying to get the Smith family out of debt. (Most of this comes from Bushman's RSR). The dead Alvin Smith is also part of the "Salamander Letter" saga.

Thanks. Fixed.

I just skimmed through and found a few additional typos/errors. Phew.

[Moliere]

Wow, JL, that's super interesting. Thanks for your work. There's a lot more 'official' contradictions in the concept of the afterlife than most members want to admit.

I taught a lesson on the resurrection and used Alma 40 and Alma 11. It's interesting how different they are from D&C 76. You couldn't do a lesson with those two together and come out with the same answer. Alma is much more condemning of the wicked while D&C 76 is much more charitable. The more I study the BoM, the more I'm convinced it's authorship was from the 1800s.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow, JL, that's super interesting. Thanks for your work. There's a lot more 'official' contradictions in the concept of the afterlife than most members want to admit.

I suspect most members are unaware of the contradictions, like I was. I had read all of these passages numerous times but hadn't connected the dots. When you see them in isolation it may not register that D&C 76 and D&C 138 say two entirely different things.

I like the theology in D&C 138 as I think it is a charitable and hopeful view of the eternities and that certainly seems to be where current LDS thought has converged on the issue in spite of the fact that you could have scriptural support for just about any viewpoint. Fascinating stuff.

[Moliere]

I suspect most members are unaware of the contradictions, like I was. I had read all of these passages numerous times but hadn't connected the dots. When you see them in isolation it may not register that D&C 76 and D&C 138 say two entirely different things.

I like the theology in D&C 138 as I think it is a charitable and hopeful view of the eternities and that certainly seems to be where current LDS thought has converged on the issue in spite of the fact that you could have scriptural support for just about any viewpoint. Fascinating stuff.

After reading Alma our bishop made a point that the resurrection will not be a happy time for the wicked. I didn't interject, but maybe I should have since even the wicked will inherit a kingdom of glory....but you couldn't get that from Alma.

I may need to pick up this book.

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

I taught a lesson on the resurrection and used Alma 40 and Alma 11. It's interesting how different they are from D&C 76. You couldn't do a lesson with those two together and come out with the same answer. Alma is much more condemning of the wicked while D&C 76 is much more charitable. The more I study the BoM, the more I'm convinced it's authorship was from the 1800s.

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the apparent contradiction between Alma 11/40 and D&C 76 that leads you to this conclusion?

[Moliere]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the apparent contradiction between Alma 11/40 and D&C 76 that leads you to this conclusion?

It wasn't just that part in particular but many other things that scream its authorship is more in line with 1700 and 1800 religious movements than with current Mormon theology. One would expect (maybe it's just me) that the BoM theology would be in line with current Mormon theology (unchanging doctrine and God....etc.) but many times it contradicts the D&C, Bible or current LDS leader teachings. I'm not saying this is the norm as most of the BoM is in line, but there are some places where the contradiction is apparent. It sounds like the book in this thread lists many of those contradictions. The biggest contradiction I see is the bright line that constantly exists between heaven and hell (do we even believe in hell?) in the BoM.

Given that Mormon doctrine has evolved, it would make sense that the BoM is somewhat out of line since it was published in 1830 and only minor changes have been made to the text since it's first publication.

[Pheidippides]

Jeff, fantastic comparison. I haven't read that part in depth yet.

I love this book and use it regularly in prepping my own lessons.

[Bo Diddley]

It wasn't just that part in particular but many other things that scream its authorship is more in line with 1700 and 1800 religious movements than with current Mormon theology. One would expect (maybe it's just me) that the BoM theology would be in line with current Mormon theology (unchanging doctrine and God....etc.) but many times it contradicts the D&C, Bible or current LDS leader teachings. I'm not saying this is the norm as most of the BoM is in line, but there are some places where the contradiction is apparent. It sounds like the book in this thread lists many of those contradictions. The biggest contradiction I see is the bright line that constantly exists between heaven and hell (do we even believe in hell?) in the BoM.

Given that Mormon doctrine has evolved, it would make sense that the BoM is somewhat out of line since it was published in 1830 and only minor changes have been made to the text since it's first publication.

Well I believe in Hell. It's something that we can experience in this life for sure. It's also something we can experience in the next, but as we believe it, does not last forever.

[SeattleUte]

I may need to pick up this book.

I wouldn't bother. A progmo who deconstructs LDS theology and purports to show it's man made through and through, even giving you the man-made stuff of its composition, and then bears his testimony that it's "true". What an abortion.

[Moliere]

I wouldn't bother. A progmo who deconstructs LDS theology and purports to show it's man made through and through, even giving you the man-made stuff of its composition, and then bears his testimony that it's "true". What an abortion.

Okay, I won't.

[jay santos]

It wasn't just that part in particular but many other things that scream its authorship is more in line with 1700 and 1800 religious movements than with current Mormon theology. One would expect (maybe it's just me) that the BoM theology would be in line with current Mormon theology (unchanging doctrine and God....etc.) but many times it contradicts the D&C, Bible or current LDS leader teachings. I'm not saying this is the norm as most of the BoM is in line, but there are some places where the contradiction is apparent. It sounds like the book in this thread lists many of those contradictions. The biggest contradiction I see is the bright line that constantly exists between heaven and hell (do we even believe in hell?) in the BoM.

Given that Mormon doctrine has evolved, it would make sense that the BoM is somewhat out of line since it was published in 1830 and only minor changes have been made to the text since it's first publication.

Of course we believe in Hell. It's Spirit Prison. The Bible's heaven and hell = Mormon Spirit Prison and Paradise. I always liked to compare LDS doctrine to Christian in this way. Everything from creation to Heaven/Hell, Mormons and Christians are pretty much exact on. We just add stuff before and after.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wouldn't bother. A progmo who deconstructs LDS theology and purports to show it's man made through and through, even giving you the man-made stuff of its composition, and then bears his testimony that it's "true". What an abortion.

Whiff!

[Northwestcoug]

I suspect most members are unaware of the contradictions, like I was. I had read all of these passages numerous times but hadn't connected the dots. When you see them in isolation it may not register that D&C 76 and D&C 138 say two entirely different things.

I like the theology in D&C 138 as I think it is a charitable and hopeful view of the eternities and that certainly seems to be where current LDS thought has converged on the issue in spite of the fact that you could have scriptural support for just about any viewpoint. Fascinating stuff.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my ailing grandparents a while back. Their only son was inactive and probably having an affair when he died in an accident. They had been despondent about his eternal welfare for quite some time. At the time I was speaking to them, I was big into the apparent merciful interpretation of D&C 138, to the exclusion of all the other scriptures you quoted above. I told them that according to the section, everyone had the opportunity to repent and be forgiven, both dead and living. This seemed to give them a little hope. I did not bring up Packer's interpretation of that section, which basically said that although everyone has to repent of their sins, this does not mean they are forgiven enough to be exalted. Whatevs, Boyd.

Now in my less-believing days, I completely agree with you that the majority of members do not have the slightest clue of all those contradictions you posted. I think this is a huge problem in the scriptures, that the LDS canon can't even get the afterlife down right. However merciful or exact a member you are, you can find an official scripture to support your view.