This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[smokymountainrain]

I've enjoyed this book. Thanks, Jeff. SU can go fuck himself.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Darn it. I forgot to include two significant contemporary data points in my tabular summary of the evolution of the doctrine of salvation for the dead. I appended my table, but will include the additions here for clarity:

1983	Seven Deadly Heresies talk	Bruce R. McConkie takes a hardline approach (surprise!) and repudiates D&C 138. If he is correct, we seem to be wasting a lot of time performing saving ordinances in the temple for these folks. “There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658
1978-1997	Gospel Principle book	The LDS publication Gospel Principles also implicitly rejects the inclusive theology of D&C 138 and reverts to the doctrine in D&C 76. “Those who reject the gospel after it was preached to them . . . on earth . . . suffer in a condition known as hell. . . . After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.”

[creekster]

I"ve had my copy for a couploe of days. Well worth the investment; I wish I'd bought it earlier.

[Moliere]

Darn it. I forgot to include two significant contemporary data points in my tabular summary of the evolution of the doctrine of salvation for the dead. I appended my table, but will include the additions here for clarity:

1983	Seven Deadly Heresies talk	Bruce R. McConkie takes a hardline approach (surprise!) and repudiates D&C 138. If he is correct, we seem to be wasting a lot of time performing saving ordinances in the temple for these folks. “There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658
1978-1997	Gospel Principle book	The LDS publication Gospel Principles also implicitly rejects the inclusive theology of D&C 138 and reverts to the doctrine in D&C 76. “Those who reject the gospel after it was preached to them . . . on earth . . . suffer in a condition known as hell. . . . After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.”

Fascinating. I bought the books in spite of SU's admonition that I shouldn't.

[Northwestcoug]

Darn it. I forgot to include two significant contemporary data points in my tabular summary of the evolution of the doctrine of salvation for the dead. I appended my table, but will include the additions here for clarity:

1983	Seven Deadly Heresies talk	Bruce R. McConkie takes a hardline approach (surprise!) and repudiates D&C 138. If he is correct, we seem to be wasting a lot of time performing saving ordinances in the temple for these folks. “There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658
1978-1997	Gospel Principle book	The LDS publication Gospel Principles also implicitly rejects the inclusive theology of D&C 138 and reverts to the doctrine in D&C 76. “Those who reject the gospel after it was preached to them . . . on earth . . . suffer in a condition known as hell. . . . After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.”

This used to really bother me. I remember reading that, then going back to section 76 and trying to see where it explicitly says that. I couldn't find anything that supported the gospel principles book. At best, if you closely read 76, it appears that the 'less valiant' go to the terrestrial kingdom, not telestial.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This used to really bother me. I remember reading that, then going back to section 76 and trying to see where it explicitly says that. I couldn't find anything that supported the gospel principles book. At best, if you closely read 76, it appears that the 'less valiant' go to the terrestrial kingdom, not telestial.

Yeah, I thought of that after posting. That is more hardline that section 76.

[Solon]

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.

SU, you would be interested in this book. It's a fantastic exercise in ambiguity.
Just like Galileo worked out all of the physics to point to an inevitable heliocentric universe while he cleverly avoided concluding anything that would get him burned at the stake, Harrell - a prof. at the byu - shows a similar flair for self-preservation.

He assiduously avoids drawing conclusions at all while inundating the reader with example after example of 19th century anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's misunderstanding of Biblical contexts, abrupt lurches in theological beliefs even during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and contemporary Mormonism's marked departure from early LDS and the Book of Mormon's teachings (let alone contemporary Mormonism's distance from Biblical theology).

I don't know Harrell personally, nor do I aspire to understand his personal beliefs, but in this book the "orthodox" or mainstream contemporary LDS belief comes across as the Simplicio of Galileo's writing, upholding an untenable belief-system against a landslide of contrary evidence in a safely "fictional" dialogue.

IMO, this book presents a challenge to today's LDS teachings and, perhaps more importantly, to contemporary LDS authority much more strongly than some attack from a typical anti-Mormon or the usual chirping over social issues. While this book is not anti-Mormon, it's anti-status quo, and anti-traditional assumptions. For better or for worse, this book cuts some of Mormonism's most central teachings to their cores.

In the meantime, progressive Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anyone else who reads this book will incorporate its information in their searches for enlightenment. This (IMO) will only lead to good things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

... Joseph Smith's misunderstanding of Biblical contexts, abrupt lurches in theological beliefs even during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and contemporary Mormonism's marked departure from early LDS and the Book of Mormon's teachings (let alone contemporary Mormonism's distance from Biblical theology).

One of the things that struck me as I read this book is just how many of the Old Testament prophecies about Christ quoted in the New Testament are in fact prooftexts. Mormons certainly don't hold the corner on this market. It is an ancient tradition.

[Sleeping in EQ]

This book seems to bring a ton of interesting stuff into one place. I'm going to buy it.

Do we have an official CS book for discussion?

[Moliere]

I started into the book this morning on my ride in and I gotta say it's pretty good so far. A year or so ago I started reading the NRSV of the Bible along with Bible commentaries and I have to admit, this book is like getting the cliff notes version of that studying. I had found some interesting discrepancies (proof texting, translation errors, etc.) in my study but this book lays it out there, or at least seems to do that based on the few pages I read.

It lays the BOOM down in the first couple paragraphs when it brings out the Lectures on Faith and their teachings that the Holy Ghost is not a personage and that the Father does not have a body. To the believing member this wouldn't make sense, especially given that the LoF were published in 1835 (or at least canonized at that time) which is 15 years after Joseph supposedly saw a corporeal Father. But it makes sense in that Joseph never mentioned the Father as part of the First Vision until 1838, which would have been after the writing and canonization of the LoF and fits in with the timeline of a changing First Vision account.

[ERCougar]

I started into the book this morning on my ride in and I gotta say it's pretty good so far. A year or so ago I started reading the NRSV of the Bible along with Bible commentaries and I have to admit, this book is like getting the cliff notes version of that studying. I had found some interesting discrepancies (proof texting, translation errors, etc.) in my study but this book lays it out there, or at least seems to do that based on the few pages I read.

It lays the BOOM down in the first couple paragraphs when it brings out the Lectures on Faith and their teachings that the Holy Ghost is not a personage and that the Father does not have a body. To the believing member this wouldn't make sense, especially given that the LoF were published in 1835 (or at least canonized at that time) which is 15 years after Joseph supposedly saw a corporeal Father. But it makes sense in that Joseph never mentioned the Father as part of the First Vision until 1838, which would have been after the writing and canonization of the LoF and fits in with the timeline of a changing First Vision account.

that lectures on faith quote blew my mind. my wife has a copy from an institute class and I just had to verify it. what makes it even more interesting is the quote early on that says that a correct understanding of the nature of God is prerequisite to exercising faith in him. in other words, the distinction is sort of important.

there's going to be a response from farms to this book at some point. lebowskis Galileo description of this is spot on.

[Jeff Lebowski]

that lectures on faith quote blew my mind. my wife has a copy from an institute class and I just had to verify it. what makes it even more interesting is the quote early on that says that a correct understanding of the nature of God is prerequisite to exercising faith in him. in other words, the distinction is sort of important.

there's going to be a response from farms to this book at some point. lebowskis Galileo description of this is spot on.

That was Solon.

[Harry Tic]

This book seems to bring a ton of interesting stuff into one place. I'm going to buy it.

Do we have an official CS book for discussion?

I just bought it last week, thanks to the endorsement of the smart people on this thread. I'm only fifty or sixty pages in but my sense is that Solon's appraisal above is about right. I can't say that it brings much new to the table, other than the fact it is coming from an apparently faithful and believing member of the church. It certainly has its quirks though and it reads like something written by an amateur (note his irritating habit of identifying the institutional affiliation and research specialization of every scholar he cites), but that's okay. Its significance lies not so much in the claims it advances but in the way that they're assembled and the source that they're coming from.

Maybe this says something about how far gone I am, but I took his discussion of prooftexting to be pretty much common knowledge. I haven't lost a lot of sleep over this sort of thing since I began years ago to think of JS producing scripture in a pseudepigraphical vein. I remember reading an excellent article by Anthony Hutchinson on a midrashic approach to LDS creation narratives that cracked the door open.

I would be curious to know if Harrell has experienced any repercussions at all.

[ERCougar]

That was Solon.

ha, sorry. reading on my phone and I misread.

[Harry Tic]

I've enjoyed this book. Thanks, Jeff. SU can go fuck himself.

SU asks a hard question that deserves to be asked and not dismissed. How is it possible to self-identify as a believing Mormon once one has recognized that many of our cherished narratives are problematic? Truth be told, SU's perspective is not too far from the way that many, many church leaders have articulated the problem (most recently, GBH): either it's all true or it isn't. That kind of disjunction is fine for both your average butt-in-the-pews member and the garden-variety apostate looking for a way to feel good about their exodus, even when it obviously continues to nag at them. But, for a growing class of church members it's not accurate or satisfying. And not just thoughtful members of the LDS church. Anyone that wants to take religious phenomena seriously (and not from a crude, positivistic standpoint) has to acknowledge that every religious system is a jerry-rigged and clumsy attempt to come to grips with the divine. But it doesn't follow that there is nothing divine there which requires articulation.