This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Sleeping in EQ]

Lecture No. 5, apparently.

Yes, it's in Lecture No. 5. I thought this was well known, but perhaps it isn't.

[Moliere]

I am reading through the priesthood chapter now and Harrell relies quite a bit on Greg Prince's work on the development of the LDS priesthood. I have been meaning to read this book for while now:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-High-Dev...ds=greg+prince

Anyone read it? Darn it, it looks like it might be tough to track down a copy.

I have a copy. It's a tough read mostly because it's academic and not really a page turner. It's also tough because there is so much ambiguity around the PH and how it was developed. I guess what I'm trying to say is it is a great resource book but it doesn't read like Harry Potter.

[Katy Lied]

Well, this isnt LDS.org, but it's the sister site, josephsmithpapers.org, that mentions The Father not being corporeal.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSu...efined&sm=none

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am reading through the priesthood chapter now and Harrell relies quite a bit on Greg Prince's work on the development of the LDS priesthood. I have been meaning to read this book for while now:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-High-Dev...ds=greg+prince

Anyone read it? Darn it, it looks like it might be tough to track down a copy.

[Moliere]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

...

[Donuthole]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

Lecture No. 5, apparently.

The trajectory of the Lectures on Faith is fascinating. For many years it was officially canonized scripture (part of the D&C) and it was then removed in 1921. Now you can't even find it on the LDS.org website (if you can, it must be hidden quite well - I can't find any link to the LOF from an official LDS source). How does something go from canonized scripture to rarely cited and not published? However, there is a nice website by the RLDS folks containing a complete copy of the LOF:

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lectures.htm

Be sure to check out Lecture #5. It is a doozy.

• God the Father is a spirit
• There are two members of the Godhead
• Christ is called "the Son" because he became mortal (classic Christian theology)

The BOM also describes God as a spirit. Apologists will argue that it doesn't really say that:

http://en.fairmormon.org/God_is_a_Sp...od_is_a_spirit

but it was black-and-white LDS doctrine for many years that God is a spirit.

[Maximus]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

[Uncle Ted]

CALLING UNCLE TED

The Dude is right.

BTW, I prefer...

Ted Nugent Summons.jpg

[UteStar]

I just bought the book off of Amazon. Very curious about the book.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This was really the part that blew my mind. The LOF is really quite unambigous on the point--Jesus is the member of the Godhead with a body. I'm with Cardiac in that I think all of this is a little silly, but Joseph Smith didn't--he justifies his whole discourse on the (what we now believe is mistaken) nature of God by stating that one can't exercise faith in God without having a correct idea of his nature. I guess JS did not exercise faith in God until 1841.

It's not completely unimportant. Our view of the Godhead, with Jesus as a separate being from God the Father, is a big part of the reason that people don't think we're Christian. Interesting that we would cling so hard to an idea that's given us so many problems, when it wasn't even our original conception of God, in our first attempt to define Him/It/Etc.

To be fair, they believe that most of the LOF were penned by Sidney Rigdon. But it was a joint effort and it was presented by JS.

[ERCougar]

Oh, and by the way, we already discussed "God is a spirit" LDS doctrine in this thread:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...-Physical-Body

Note the quotes by PPP and Erastus Snow here:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post954747

This was really the part that blew my mind. The LOF is really quite unambigous on the point--Jesus is the member of the Godhead with a body. I'm with Cardiac in that I think all of this is a little silly, but Joseph Smith didn't--he justifies his whole discourse on the (what we now believe is mistaken) nature of God by stating that one can't exercise faith in God without having a correct idea of his nature. I guess JS did not exercise faith in God until 1841.

It's not completely unimportant. Our view of the Godhead, with Jesus as a separate being from God the Father, is a big part of the reason that people don't think we're Christian. Interesting that we would cling so hard to an idea that's given us so many problems, when it wasn't even our original conception of God, in our first attempt to define Him/It/Etc.

[CardiacCoug]

As I have read this book I have often thought to myself that I can't imagine a more convincing treatise on the futility/arbitrariness of abstract theology. And of course I always think of you when I think of the term "abstract theology".

Yeah, I like the term because when people say "I don't believe in God (or Christ or Mormonism, etc.)" I think sometimes it's good to point out that they are probably just rejecting the abstract theology. And really who could blame anybody for rejecting the idea that abstract theology has a basis in fact? It doesn't. It's unknowable and improbable. It's conjecture.

If you explain it like that I think most people agree that they still believe in most of what people talk about in Church -- they still believe in most of the real world Christian and LDS values.

I've thought about trying to estimate the percentage of time in Sacrament Meeting and other Church meetings that I would categorize as "abstract theology" versus "concrete Christian living/values." Maybe I'll bring a stopwatch and try it sometime.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm reading this now, thanks CS Book Club!

I find the evolution of these ideas fascinating, but I can't help focusing on how abstract theology is totally arbitrary and mostly ridiculous. I'm amazed that anyone could have strong feelings one way or another about the true nature of the Godhead, for example. I could see having a strong opinion about what the doctrine regarding the Trinity currently is or what it was at a certain time. But it's unknowable and it doesn't matter, anyway. It just never fails to amaze me that people want to treat this stuff like it's a factual matter, like it's math or something.

As I have read this book I have often thought to myself that I can't imagine a more convincing treatise on the futility/arbitrariness of abstract theology. And of course I always think of you when I think of the term "abstract theology".

[CardiacCoug]

I'm reading this now, thanks CS Book Club!

I find the evolution of these ideas fascinating, but I can't help focusing on how abstract theology is totally arbitrary and mostly ridiculous. I'm amazed that anyone could have strong feelings one way or another about the true nature of the Godhead, for example. I could see having a strong opinion about what the doctrine regarding the Trinity currently is or what it was at a certain time. But it's unknowable and it doesn't matter, anyway. It just never fails to amaze me that people want to treat this stuff like it's a factual matter, like it's math or something.

[SeattleUte]

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.

This is a great post and a wonderful piece of writing and psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, there are so many books and subjects that interest me a great deal more than the sources and makings of Mormon theology. You have wonderfully deconstructed this fellow's mind. However, if I wanted to spend a thousand pages psycholanalyzing a really quirky even strange persona and psyche, there's that very interesting looking biography of Himmler that came out last year.