This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[ERCougar]

I haven't quite finished the book and I probably won't. It's not really the kind of thing you read from cover to cover.

A couple of quick impressions. First, there are things about it that are very useful. I particularly enjoyed his generally helpful summaries of early nineteenth-century views on a given topic, followed by early Mormon views (sometimes broken down by period), followed by more contemporary positions. I'm not a historian and I'm really not in a position to assess his work but it seemed to me that this way of organizing the book was helpful and should prove useful for future consultation. I didn't find the Old Testament and New Testament assessments nearly as helpful and Harrell often seems quite out of his depth. He comes across as an avid but utterly untrained reader of the critical literature. Of course I'm neither avid nor trained (nor am I even a reader of the scholarly literature) when it comes to that, so take it for what it's worth.

The second impression is maybe more substantial. Harrell characterizes himself in the introduction as an "active" member of the church, but it's worth noting that he does not self-identify as a believing one. Maybe he takes "active" to imply "believing," but my suspicion is that the word choice is deliberate. And it's easy to see why. If you had spent most of your life taking every one of the claims of the restoration at face value and dutifully limited your reading to official church publications--and then you suddenly realized that the story was far more complicated than you had ever believed--it's easy to see how you could come away from Harrell's book with your testimony in tatters. It purports to provide a fairly evenhanded comparison of LDS views (early and late) with New Testament and Old Testament perspectives and, almost inevitably, LDS views turn out to look utterly alien and, at any rate, not a "restoration" of anything. If you have only ever considered correlated history or utter apostasy to be the only viable options, it's hard to see how you could go on, if Harrell's picture is mostly accurate.

I guess I'm not as upset about that kind of thing as I should be since I came to the conclusion a long time ago that, while many people find it helpful to think of LDS theology in a "restorationist" mode, one may also find it useful to see JS as employing the restoration trope as a way of communicating his own insights--revelations, that is--in the only idiom that was available to him in Bible-obsessed Jacksonian America. All religious authority at the time was ultimately derived from ancient scripture and to even get in the game--to even attempt to bring new religious light into the world--meant that you had to do so in the idiom of ancient scripture. We know that God is obliged to speak to us according to the manner of our understanding but we rarely think about the ramifications of this idea. It's unsurprising that JS, showing up on the scene when he did, would consequently see himself first and foremost as a translator of ancient records (why, for instance, couldn't God have simply had Moroni dictate to JS the essence of the BoM? Why did he need an ancient record?). Harrell, if we were to read between the lines of his ostensibly dispassionate book, nevertheless seems to be troubled by this, as many orthodox believers might be. He seems utterly unaware of the significance of the fact that JS might be regarded as recapitulating certain elements of a long-standing tradition of pseudepigraphically generating scripture (which is an ancient tradition indeed). Is the question of Mormon scriptures' ancient origins even relevant? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm at the point where I don't find it a terribly interesting question to ask. We have the fruits of JS's revelations (or, if you prefer, go ahead and put "revelations" in scare quotes--it doesn't matter to me) available for our inspection: we can assess them on their own merits. As for the inconsistencies between OT, NT, and LDS views on a given topic, it seems to me that Harrell would have been well served to read a little bit of Harold Bloom and familiarizing himself with the notion of misprision. He seems to be utterly unaware that later writers getting earlier writers "wrong" is entirely the point.

First, great post. Your last paragraph is a well-stated description of a construction that it has taken me years to form. You could have saved me some work.

Second, to defend Harrell a bit--yes, he's out of his element, but keep in mind that he's an engineering professor. I get the sense that this book is more the result of a long-time hobby that found an interested audience. Isn't that more of an indictment of state of the CES than of Harrell? It's embarrassing that this stuff comes out of the engineering department of BYU because Deseret Book is too busy publishing the latest S. Michael Wilcox tome.

[Harry Tic]

First, great post. Your last paragraph is a well-stated description of a construction that it has taken me years to form. You could have saved me some work.

Second, to defend Harrell a bit--yes, he's out of his element, but keep in mind that he's an engineering professor. I get the sense that this book is more the result of a long-time hobby that found an interested audience. Isn't that more of an indictment of state of the CES than of Harrell? It's embarrassing that this stuff comes out of the engineering department of BYU because Deseret Book is too busy publishing the latest S. Michael Wilcox tome.

Thanks, ERCougar. I should have been more clear. While Harrell is obviously a hobbyist (as he notes in the prologue), this is an extremely impressive work. It's a shame that this kind of work is done by manufacturing engineering professors instead of, I don't know, religion professors...

[CardiacCoug]

First, great post. Your last paragraph is a well-stated description of a construction that it has taken me years to form. You could have saved me some work.

Second, to defend Harrell a bit--yes, he's out of his element, but keep in mind that he's an engineering professor. I get the sense that this book is more the result of a long-time hobby that found an interested audience. Isn't that more of an indictment of state of the CES than of Harrell? It's embarrassing that this stuff comes out of the engineering department of BYU because Deseret Book is too busy publishing the latest S. Michael Wilcox tome.

Or is it that Harrell gets a pass (after all he is just a scriptural "hobbyist") and gets to keep his job as a BYU engineering professor, while a religion professor could easily put together a book like this but would then have to find a new job?

[SeattleUte]

Yes, good last post, Tic. This is one of Cuf's better all-time threads, and it's very interesting. In the aggregate it provides an insight into the progmo mind. Progmos, such a tiny enigmatic sub-class of Mormons. I look at the publisher of this book, Greg Kofford Books, and it's one of these out of the garage operations, almost self-published. Even the books that are iconic to progmos seem at best to be issued by Signature, iteself a very small press. Progmos sure are a tiny minority.

Why do progmos stick around, hope for reform, etc.? I guess I can't say it's quixotic, as the LDS Church ultimately does relent to secular pressures. But for me, I confess, the LDS problem was very "binary". My reaction, in college, and not too far off my mission, was, "Okay. I get it. This is not what I hoped it was, what I was led to believe. Goodbye." To me it was simple.

A few insights may be gleaned from this thread.

First, (unlike myself) progmos actually do love the community, cheesy repetition of Mormon lore and cluelessnes about LDS origins and Mormon doctine nonsense and all. Why? I don't know. Is it the people? Hard to belive it is. Maybe it's a high to feel superior so often.

Second, what's the difference between Joseph Smith and the author of the "Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews"? And Hebrews is still a masterpiece.

I agree that anyone who spends a thousand pages delving into minutiae of the origins of LDS doctrine in order to show its man made origins is kind of missing the point. The citation to Harold Bloom and his association of misreadings with genius is right on.

[Uncle Ted]

Thanks, ERCougar. I should have been more clear. While Harrell is obviously a hobbyist (as he notes in the prologue), this is an extremely impressive work. It's a shame that this kind of work is done by manufacturing engineering professors instead of, I don't know, religion professors...

This is yet another example why engineers rule the earth. Our hobbies produce more impressive works than the so call professionals in their respective field of study.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The second impression is maybe more substantial. Harrell characterizes himself in the introduction as an "active" member of the church, but it's worth noting that he does not self-identify as a believing one. Maybe he takes "active" to imply "believing," but my suspicion is that the word choice is deliberate. And it's easy to see why. If you had spent most of your life taking every one of the claims of the restoration at face value and dutifully limited your reading to official church publications--and then you suddenly realized that the story was far more complicated than you had ever believed--it's easy to see how you could come away from Harrell's book with your testimony in tatters. It purports to provide a fairly evenhanded comparison of LDS views (early and late) with New Testament and Old Testament perspectives and, almost inevitably, LDS views turn out to look utterly alien and, at any rate, not a "restoration" of anything. If you have only ever considered correlated history or utter apostasy to be the only viable options, it's hard to see how you could go on, if Harrell's picture is mostly accurate.

Hmmm… I always get a little nervous about extrapolating personal belief, but maybe that is unavoidable. Either way, I am not sure we need to view believing as binary. Certainly his belief is nuanced at best. You might want to check out his podcast with John Dehlin. It was a terrible interview by Dehlin as he talked most of the time (I doubt he even read the book), but it still had some interesting insights. If I recall correctly, Harrell gets into the "now what?" question and says that one way to deal with this is to not get so caught up in deep doctrine and abstract theology and focus more on basic Christian principles.

As for the impact of the book, yes someone could make the argument that it is a systematic deconstruction of LDS core doctrines. I am sure the inevitable FARMS review will do precisely that, and imply all sorts of nasty things about Harrell's character. But for me at least, I think the primary theme of the book is just what it says on the cover, it is a study of how LDS doctrines develop and evolve over time. There is an old saying, "Policies and procedures may change, but doctrine never changes." I think I even used this phrase myself several times in my younger days. But nothing could be further from the truth. LDS doctrine has always been fluid, and it continues to change today. This raises lots of interesting questions. For example, why is it that fundamental doctrines like the Adam-God doctrine and blood atonement were both abandoned (in spite of being taught extensively by a prophet) but the idea that we are literal spiritual offspring of God catches on, when it was first suggested not by revelation to a prophet, but by Orson Pratt? It seems to me that there is somewhat of a democratic nature to this process. Certain doctrines capture the imagination of the believers and tend to be talked about and discussed more and eventually take hold. It is far more complex than that, but I think this is a factor. Another interesting conclusion from the book is that in some cases, current LDS doctrine is not at all clear (see my discussion above on salvation for the dead) when you drill down into the details. And yet, I would guess that the vast majority of LDS members would consider that doctrine to be rock solid. How is that we can have so many inconsistencies in our scriptures on such a core doctrine, but those issues fly right under the radar? That is a fascinating commentary on religion and belief systems in general.

As for the inconsistencies between OT, NT, and LDS views on a given topic, it seems to me that Harrell would have been well served to read a little bit of Harold Bloom and familiarize himself with the notion of misprision. He seems to be utterly unaware that later writers getting earlier writers "wrong" is entirely the point.

I don't think this is entirely fair. In the book he demonstrates quite thoroughly that the NT is filled with references to the OT containing prophecies about Christ, yet most (all?) are proof texts. The OT says almost nothing about the events of the NT, unless one is inclined to disregard context and force a different interpretation on the text. But of course those scriptures can still have a profound impact on those inclined to believe. Just last week we were having a discussion in HPG on testimony and one of the members stated that the evidence of Christ's divinity is overwhelming given the vast amount of prophecies about Him contained in the OT.

[SeattleUte]

I think what we see is that LDS theology and belief can claim no unique status concerning the process that has led to development of its core doctrines. The development of the trinity in late antiquity's Christianity is a fascinating example, ultimately the product of compromise, consuensus, and aesthetic and artistic taste (including a desire to have it both ways with Christ), and a desire for lucidity and symetry.

To most believing LDS, recognizing this would be a shattering experience. To an unusual few, this provides an odd comfort.

[woot]

Hmmm… I always get a little nervous about extrapolating personal belief, but maybe that is unavoidable. Either way, I am not sure we need to view believing as binary. Certainly his belief is nuanced at best. You might want to check out his podcast with John Dehlin. It was a terrible interview by Dehlin as he talked most of the time (I doubt he even read the book), but it still had some interesting insights. If I recall correctly, Harrell gets into the "now what?" question and says that one way to deal with this is to not get so caught up in deep doctrine and abstract theology and focus more on basic Christian principles.

As for the impact of the book, yes someone could make the argument that it is a systematic deconstruction of LDS core doctrines. I am sure the inevitable FARMS review will do precisely that, and imply all sorts of nasty things about Harrell's character. But for me at least, I think the primary theme of the book is just what it says on the cover, it is a study of how LDS doctrines develop and evolve over time. There is an old saying, "Policies and procedures may change, but doctrine never changes." I think I even used this phrase myself several times in my younger days. But nothing could be further from the truth. LDS doctrine has always been fluid, and it continues to change today. This raises lots of interesting questions. For example, why is it that fundamental doctrines like the Adam-God doctrine and blood atonement were both abandoned (in spite of being taught extensively by a prophet) but the idea that we are literal spiritual offspring of God catches on, when it was first suggested not by revelation to a prophet, but by Orson Pratt? It seems to me that there is somewhat of a democratic nature to this process. Certain doctrines capture the imagination of the believers and tend to be talked about and discussed more and eventually take hold. It is far more complex than that, but I think this is a factor. Another interesting conclusion from the book is that in some cases, current LDS doctrine is not at all clear (see my discussion above on salvation for the dead) when you drill down into the details. And yet, I would guess that the vast majority of LDS members would consider that doctrine to be rock solid. How is that we can have so many inconsistencies in our scriptures on such a core doctrine, but those issues fly right under the radar? That is a fascinating commentary on religion and belief systems in general.



I don't think this is entirely fair. In the book he demonstrates quite thoroughly that the NT is filled with references to the OT containing prophecies about Christ, yet most (all?) are proof texts. The OT says almost nothing about the events of the NT, unless one is inclined to disregard context and force a different interpretation on the text. But of course those scriptures can still have a profound impact on those inclined to believe. Just last week we were having a discussion in HPG on testimony and one of the members stated that the evidence of Christ's divinity is overwhelming given the vast amount of prophecies about Him contained in the OT.

I'm reminded of memetics. In any given situation, various ideas will be presented, and some will take hold and others won't through a process that Dawkins likened unto natural selection. Adam-god, for instance, would have been an obvious candidate because not only is it just weird (not necessarily a bad thing), it would have required all sorts of other ideas in order to contextualize it. The issues about how many personages are in the godhead may have been similar, where once other pieces fell into place, it just made a lot more sense for there to be 3 rather than 2. The stuff about eternal families, the preexistence, and being literal spirit children make sense to me because in my experience even non-Mormons often believe in or hope for those things despite their church not teaching them. They're very appealing, and I think Joseph really struck gold with those ones (pardon the expression). Ever since the early 20th century, the basic Mormon cosmology is pretty much figured out, so it makes sense that any further changes would be slow, and official revelations would become unnecessary.

[Katy Lied]

I'm reminded of memetics. In any given situation, various ideas will be presented, and some will take hold and others won't through a process that Dawkins likened unto natural selection. Adam-god, for instance, would have been an obvious candidate because not only is it just weird (not necessarily a bad thing), it would have required all sorts of other ideas in order to contextualize it. The issues about how many personages are in the godhead may have been similar, where once other pieces fell into place, it just made a lot more sense for there to be 3 rather than 2. The stuff about eternal families, the preexistence, and being literal spirit children make sense to me because in my experience even non-Mormons often believe in or hope for those things despite their church not teaching them. They're very appealing, and I think Joseph really struck gold with those ones (pardon the expression). Ever since the early 20th century, the basic Mormon cosmology is pretty much figured out, so it makes sense that any further changes would be slow, and official revelations would become unnecessary.

Interesting

[statman]

First, great post. Your last paragraph is a well-stated description of a construction that it has taken me years to form. You could have saved me some work.

Second, to defend Harrell a bit--yes, he's out of his element, but keep in mind that he's an engineering professor. I get the sense that this book is more the result of a long-time hobby that found an interested audience. Isn't that more of an indictment of state of the CES than of Harrell? It's embarrassing that this stuff comes out of the engineering department of BYU because Deseret Book is too busy publishing the latest S. Michael Wilcox tome.

What's sad about CES in general and the Religion Department at BYU(.*) specifically is that they simply will not hire anyone whose research is anywhere outside of the purest of the pure of LDS Orthodoxy. I know of one guy in particular who has an Ivy League pedigree, is Chairman of the department he currently teaches in, taught at BYU for two years as a visiting professor and another year at BYU-H and had the best student evaluations the religion department had ever seen up to that point, has significant publications both in his field, and in "LDS Studies"/Book of Mormon, and on top of it all is a member of the Stake Presidency where he currently lives. He has been asked on three different occasions by various members of the faculty at BYU to apply for a tenure track position - once in the History department and twice in the Religion department. All three times his application process was stopped during his interviews on campus. When the conservative bloc of the Religion Department got wind of his application, he was immediately shot down - including the application for a position in the History department.

I'm generally pretty orthodox in my beliefs, but I'm also well aware of the huge amount of fuzziness and apparent contradictions in LDS positions on a variety of doctrinal questions. I see absolutely no harm in using academic research methodologies to try to explain some of that fuzziness and put brackets on the valid explanations of the curiosities. I find it sad and disheartening that BYU's religion department is either not sure enough in their own testimonies, or not sure enough of the testimonies of BYU students that they're unwilling to let such faculty teach at BYU.

[woot]

What's sad about CES in general and the Religion Department at BYU(.*) specifically is that they simply will not hire anyone whose research is anywhere outside of the purest of the pure of LDS Orthodoxy. I know of one guy in particular who has an Ivy League pedigree, is Chairman of the department he currently teaches in, taught at BYU for two years as a visiting professor and another year at BYU-H and had the best student evaluations the religion department had ever seen up to that point, has significant publications both in his field, and in "LDS Studies"/Book of Mormon, and on top of it all is a member of the Stake Presidency where he currently lives. He has been asked on three different occasions by various members of the faculty at BYU to apply for a tenure track position - once in the History department and twice in the Religion department. All three times his application process was stopped during his interviews on campus. When the conservative bloc of the Religion Department got wind of his application, he was immediately shot down - including the application for a position in the History department.

I'm generally pretty orthodox in my beliefs, but I'm also well aware of the huge amount of fuzziness and apparent contradictions in LDS positions on a variety of doctrinal questions. I see absolutely no harm in using academic research methodologies to try to explain some of that fuzziness and put brackets on the valid explanations of the curiosities. I find it sad and disheartening that BYU's religion department is either not sure enough in their own testimonies, or not sure enough of the testimonies of BYU students that they're unwilling to let such faculty teach at BYU.

Perhaps this is already common knowledge, but I remember being surprised in speaking to a BYU professor and being told that regardless of your field, you have to basically promise not to do any research that might have implications on LDS history or doctrine. Or something like that. Perhaps the policy was exaggerated or recently relaxed, since Harrell seems to still be employed.

[CardiacCoug]

The lesson in our GD class tomorrow is about "The Three Degrees of Glory." Questions should be asked like "Who will inherit the Telestial Kingdom?" and "Who will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom?"

Man, how much more interesting would it be to just discuss the stuff in this thread and then everything about Alvin Smith, including the Salamander Letter stuff? That's a lesson to which I would actually pay attention.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The lesson in our GD class tomorrow is about "The Three Degrees of Glory." Questions should be asked like "Who will inherit the Telestial Kingdom?" and "Who will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom?"

Man, how much more interesting would it be to just discuss the stuff in this thread and then everything about Alvin Smith, including the Salamander Letter stuff? That's a lesson to which I would actually pay attention.

I remember sitting in an Institute class at Utah State as a young student questioning my "fit" in the church and hearing the "instructor" say, "The Telestial kingdom will be full of liars, adulterers, and scientists." Sorry Woot. Our fates are sealed.

[pellegrino]

I remember sitting in an Institute class at Utah State as a young student questioning my "fit" in the church and hearing the "instructor" say, "The Telestial kingdom will be full of liars, adulterers, and scientists." Sorry Woot. Our fates are sealed.

yall will still enjoy a glory that is beyond our comprehension.

[Mormon Red Death]

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.

My problem is when you read in John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

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