This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Northwestcoug]

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.

It's been awhile since I've gone to church, but I still keep in contact with a few ward members. But while I was still in making my way slowly out, I was kind of startled by a realization: there were many active members I could point to, knowing that church worship was not rewarding to them. They were there for a number of reasons: habit, a good place to raise kids, keep peace at home, job commitments. But you could tell that many of them just didn't want to be there. Maybe it is because the orthodoxy is not accurate nor satisfying, as you say.

Sometimes I think I could really get behind your 'messy' view of organized religion, that it's a crude and not a perfect way to access divine, but the divine is still there. But the problem I have staring me in the face every time I contemplate returning to an active belief is that the religion of my upbringing won't even let me consider some doctrines are incorrect, at least in an official forum. Of course I would be supported and loved by local members, and we could still enjoy regular comraderie. But I would definitely be on the outside if I were to share half the ideas Harrell brings up.

[Solon]

Dont apologize. Being confused with Solon is a great compliment.

This is ER Coug's thinly veiled reminder that my wife owes him a pie.
Get in line, pal!

This book isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for an open-minded Mormon, although I imagine that the faithful reader will have some hard thinking to do (a good thing, right?).

[Moliere]

I'm glad my dismissive comment led to your post above, but I want to go on record here - my comment was indeed tongue in cheek. I love SU. Always will.

Charity never faileth...

[smokymountainrain]

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.

I'm glad my dismissive comment led to your post above, but I want to go on record here - my comment was indeed tongue in cheek. I love SU. Always will.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

As a board, we should have more discussions in this vein. I'll say more on another occasion, but these days I consider myself a Christian first and a Mormon second. My Mormonism has become a kind of mid-level appartus, kind of like an iron rod that has led me to the tree (and that I value), but that is no match for the tree and the fruit.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Great post, Harry.

[Donuthole]

Dont apologize. Being confused with Solon is a great compliment.

He was apologizing to Solon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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

Dont apologize. Being confused with Solon is a great compliment.

[Harry Tic]

I asked myself this question as I drove past the very large Methodist church on my way to the stake center.

They have their own problematic narratives. Ours are more interesting.

[Moliere]

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.

I asked myself this question as I drove past the very large Methodist church on my way to the stake center.

[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.

[ERCougar]

That was Solon.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.