The Hyrum Andrus Lectures

[David T]

Since the original thread was closed by the OP's request for personal reasons not related to the discussion of the lectures, I'd like to open a new one for those who have been listening to the lectures who'd like to discuss them. (the links are in this thread)

So far, I've listened to the first seven (ending with the Nephi's Last-Day Prophecies) sessions of the Book of Mormon seminar. I've highly enjoyed it. Much thanks to rockslider for making these available.

I've found in some places he articulates concepts that I've been trying to work out in my mind in a very clear way that helped me grasp them better.

In other places, he goes in some directions I don't necessarily agree with in the details, but the applicable principles I find useful and uplifting.

Although I will say, I found the End Times Prophecy section the hardest to listen through. I've never been a fan of attempts to systematically arrange all the prophetic texts into a single narrative, "This is how things are going to happen." They all inevitably rely on some pretty extraordinary leaps in logic, and also generally a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the old testament texts. They also are highly dated (see Hyrum's repeated use of the Russian threat).

I do, however, find his Book of Mormon Christology fascinating, and expounding on concepts I've been pondering and developing in my own personal studies. I find these sections the most interesting and worth of pondering, and teaching.

One question: Hyrum made a reference to Joseph Smith teaching that Enoch held the keys over the ministry of translated personages. He referenced a note in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith which referred to Enoch holding keys over a dispensation, and noting something concerning the nature and ministration of translated personages, but didn't quite make the explicit link he was stating. Is there another clearer reference, or is this just his combining of two ideas? I admit, it's a very very interesting idea (with the concept of translated individuals being somewhat of a 'Stake', or 'Mission' in and of itself outside of the jurisdiction of the Earthly Church, but under a Priesthood leader with specific keys) - but I am unfamiliar with a specific reference on that point.

I look forward to continuing to listen to the Book of Mormon lectures.

Any thoughts on others who have been listening along?

[William Schryver]

Since the original thread was closed by the OP's request for personal reasons not related to the discussion of the lectures, I'd like to open a new one for those who have been listening to the lectures who'd like to discuss them. (the links are in this thread)

So far, I've listened to the first seven (ending with the Nephi's Last-Day Prophecies) sessions of the Book of Mormon seminar. I've highly enjoyed it. Much thanks to rockslider for making these available.

I've found in some places he articulates concepts that I've been trying to work out in my mind in a very clear way that helped me grasp them better.

In other places, he goes in some directions I don't necessarily agree with in the details, but the applicable principles I find useful and uplifting.

Although I will say, I found the End Times Prophecy section the hardest to listen through. I've never been a fan of attempts to systematically arrange all the prophetic texts into a single narrative, "This is how things are going to happen." They all inevitably rely on some pretty extraordinary leaps in logic, and also generally a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the old testament texts. They also are highly dated (see Hyrum's repeated use of the Russian threat).

I do, however, find his Book of Mormon Christology fascinating, and expounding on concepts I've been pondering and developing in my own personal studies. I find these sections the most interesting and worth of pondering, and teaching.

One question: Hyrum made a reference to Joseph Smith teaching that Enoch held the keys over the ministry of translated personages. He referenced a note in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith which referred to Enoch holding keys over a dispensation, and noting something concerning the nature and ministration of translated personages, but didn't quite make the explicit link he was stating. Is there another clearer reference, or is this just his combining of two ideas? I admit, it's a very very interesting idea (with the concept of translated individuals being somewhat of a 'Stake', or 'Mission' in and of itself outside of the jurisdiction of the Earthly Church, but under a Priesthood leader with specific keys) - but I am unfamiliar with a specific reference on that point.

I look forward to continuing to listen to the Book of Mormon lectures.

Any thoughts on others who have been listening along?

I downloaded and listened to a few selected tapes of his teachings. I now understand perfectly why it was he was threatened with excommunication if he did not cease such teachings. When it comes to things like this, one doesn't have to be 180 degrees wrong in order for the danger to be present. One degree will suffice. And, from what I have already heard, and notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of correctness in his teachings, Hyrum Andrus attests at least a one degree variance from true north--sufficient to lead the unwary far astray from their desired objective, as has already been manifest by those who, influenced by those teachings, have already been led to apostasy and its attendant separation from the umbrella of Priesthood authority.

[David T]

I now understand perfectly why it was he was threatened with excommunication if he did not cease such teachings.

Which ones in particular contain those teachings?

[HiJolly]

I have completed downloading the lectures, and look forward to listening to them. Thanks, Rockslider!!

HiJolly

[David Bokovoy]

I downloaded and listened to a few selected tapes of his teachings. I now understand perfectly why it was he was threatened with excommunication if he did not cease such teachings. When it comes to things like this, one doesn't have to be 180 degrees wrong in order for the danger to be present. One degree will suffice. And, from what I have already heard, and notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of correctness in his teachings, Hyrum Andrus attests at least a one degree variance from true north--sufficient to lead the unwary far astray from their desired objective, as has already been manifest by those who, influenced by those teachings, have already been led to apostasy and its attendant separation from the umbrella of Priesthood authority.

With all due respect, you don't have any idea what teachings he was asked to cease professing. Certainly not by listening to a "few selected tapes." And so far as presenting a doctrinal view one degree at variance from true north, the next time I sit through a sacrament meeting and hear a talk without one degree of variance from revealed truth will be the first. As McConkie once expressed, all of us have been guilty at one point or another with misinterpreting doctrine. It would be a pretty lonely church, however, if the only individuals who could retain membership would be those who never vary from your understanding of true north. Andrus is in full fellowship today and his past sins, whatever they may be, do not detract from his contributions to the kingdom.

[William Schryver]

With all due respect, you don't have any idea what teachings he was asked to cease professing.

Actually, I suspect that there were no "specific" teachings that were referenced when he was asked to cease his "educational seminars" (or whatever they were called) among the Saints. It has been my experience that the discernment of spiritual dissonance seldom takes the form of detailed understanding. Rather, it consists of a largely unarticulated sense that something is not consonant with the voice of the Spirit. This describes quite well the sense I experienced while listening to portions of the tapes I had downloaded: a strong sense that Br. Andrus was setting himself up as a uniquely qualified authority while yet leaving the subtle implication that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way and it was therefore necessary to perform a course correction--and he, without ever explicitly saying so, was making it clear that the Lord had provided him with the proper coordinates.

Not only that, but it abundantly clear from what Rockslider has reported that Andrus still holds privately to his view of himself and of the church, bringing into question the sincerity of his "repentance" since it is quite apparent that he never came to recognize, let alone acknowledge the error into which he had fallen.

You see, Hyrum Andrus is merely one of many who have fallen into the same trap, from the days of Joseph Smith until the present time. The history of the church is replete with the accounts of those who became convinced that they had been gifted with some unique view of doctrinal exegesis, and who then undertook, in various ways and with varying degrees of charisma and commitment, to alter the present course of the kingdom; or at least to convince others to see things similarly, as though the resultant groundswell of public sentiment (if it could be effected) would somehow "force the hand" of those at the helm.

Well, in my almost 50 years on this planet, I've seen them come and I've seen them go. As soon as one fades into obscurity, there's always another to take his place. I don't doubt that we'll see a marked increase in such things as the end of this world draws ever nearer.

[David Bokovoy]

Actually, I suspect that there were no "specific" teachings that were referenced when he was asked to cease his "educational seminars" (or whatever they were called) among the Saints. It has been my experience that the discernment of spiritual dissonance seldom takes the form of detailed understanding. Rather, it consists of a largely unarticulated sense that something is not consonant with the voice of the Spirit. This describes quite well the sense I experienced while listening to portions of the tapes I had downloaded: a strong sense that Br. Andrus was setting himself up as a uniquely qualified authority while yet leaving the subtle implication that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way and it was therefore necessary to perform a course correction--and he, without ever explicitly saying so, was making it clear that the Lord had provided him with the proper coordinates.

Not only that, but it abundantly clear from what Rockslider has reported that Andrus still holds privately to his view of himself and of the church, bringing into question the sincerity of his "repentance" since it is quite apparent that he never came to recognize, let alone acknowledge the error into which he had fallen.

You see, Hyrum Andrus is merely one of many who have fallen into the same trap, from the days of Joseph Smith until the present time. The history of the church is replete with the accounts of those who became convinced that they had been gifted with some unique view of doctrinal exegesis, and who then undertook, in various ways and with varying degrees of charisma and commitment, to alter the present course of the kingdom; or at least to convince others to see things similarly, as though the resultant groundswell of public sentiment (if it could be effected) would somehow "force the hand" of those at the helm.

Well, in my almost 50 years on this planet, I've seen them come and I've seen them go. As soon as one fades into obscurity, there's always another to take his place. I don't doubt that we'll see a marked increase in such things as the end of this world draws ever nearer.

I don't know Brother Andrus personally. I have not yet listened to the discussion tapes I have downloaded, but look forward to doing so. All I know is that when I returned home from my mission at the end of 1992, I discovered his three doctrinal books and my life was never the same. At that time, his books were out of print, so I spent many celestial hours pouring over their pages in the BYU library. Today, I don't agree without everything he's written, but Brother Andrus' work retains a prominent place on my bookshelf. Whatever his sins, I'm very grateful for his inspired efforts that for me personally opened vast new layers of spiritual understanding.

[William Schryver]

I don't know Brother Andrus personally. I have not yet listened to the discussion tapes I have downloaded, but look forward to doing so. All I know is that when I returned home from my mission at the end of 1992, I discovered his three doctrinal books and my life was never the same. At that time, his books were out of print, so I spent many celestial hours pouring over their pages in the BYU library. Today, I don't agree without everything he's written, but Brother Andrus' work retains a prominent place on my bookshelf. Whatever his sins, I'm very grateful for his inspired efforts that for me personally opened vast new layers of spiritual understanding.

I will freely admit that I was impressed by many of his observations and insights in the limited selection of materials to which I listened the other day. And I have, throughout my life, been able to derive immense benefit from people across a broad spectrum of beliefs, standards, lifestyles, etc. In that respect, I have no doubt whatsoever that Hyrum Andrus has been and will continue to be of benefit to many. That said, I reiterate that I was rather deeply disturbed by what I perceived as a "sub-text" to a lot of what he was saying: an underlying suggestion that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way and that he, Hyrum Andrus, had been singled out by the Lord to receive intelligence, understanding, and directions that could, if accepted, understood, and adopted by the church, bring about the course correction that Br. Andrus believed necessary. That this observation/perception was correct was established by my subsequent investigations into the person of Hyrum Andrus, of whom, I confess, I was entirely ignorant prior to rockslider recently bringing him to my attention. My investigations showed that he and his teachings had a relationship to several apostate splinter groups that had formed in the late 20th century, during the "Y2K" craze when many people were convinced that the second coming was nigh. The beliefs of these people were characterized (among other things) by their convictions that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way, and that someone needed to get things "back on course" before it was too late.

I wonder how many people lost their souls, or at least took a damaging spiritual detour, simply because they were not able to successfully draw benefit from the good Br. Andrus had to offer while simultaneously rejecting, or at least filtering, the dangerous elements of the "sub-text" to which I referred above?

While yet recognizing the fact that much must be done to prepare the Saints (on many levels) to perform their part of the building of the New Jerusalem, I am convinced that all is proceeding according to the mind and will of the Lord; that He is eminently capable of performing his marvelous work and a wonder; and that, when the time comes, He will have prepared a people and also raised up an Enoch (as it were) to lead the Saints to the latter-day Zion.

[David Bokovoy]

I was rather deeply disturbed by what I perceived as a "sub-text" to a lot of what he was saying: an underlying suggestion that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way and that he, Hyrum Andrus, had been singled out by the Lord to receive intelligence, understanding, and directions that could, if accepted, understood, and adopted by the church, bring about the course correction that Br. Andrus believed necessary.

If that perspective appears in the talks, then I owe you an apology and I too would feel deeply troubled by such a sentiment. For the record, I do not personally believe that the Church made a wrong step in the Americanization process. I maintain that such change was a tragic response to persecution, but I firmly believe our leaders were inspired to move the work forward in spite of this worldly opposition.

[wenglund]

I am old enough to have been around during Bro. Andrus' hayday as a religion teach at BYU. Because of his popularity as at teacher, it was difficult to get into his classes. In fact, he had something of a cult following among the students, and it was this, along with his favorite topic at the time ("developing a personal relationship with Christ") that to some degree soured me in relation to him--not that I thought that there was anyting terrible about what he was teaching, it was more that I tended to be a bit of an iconiclast at the time (I also didn't listen to tapes or read books by the very popular Paul Dunn or Hartman Rector). I haven't downloaded or listen to Bro. Andrus' tapes for the same reason (I am still a bit of an iconiclast and am somewhat averse to cults of personalities), though I won't discourage others from doing so if they see fit.

My only caution to others would be to keep one's eye single towards heaven, and trust most in God and those he has chosen to lead and guide us back to him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

I am old enough to have been around during Bro. Andrus' hayday as a religion teach at BYU. Because of his popularity as at teacher, it was difficult to get into his classes. In fact, he had something of a cult following among the students, and it was this, along with his favorite topic at the time ("developing a personal relationship with Christ") that to some degree soured me in relation to him--not that I thought that there was anyting terrible about what he was teaching, it was more that I tended to be a bit of an iconiclast at the time (I also didn't listen to tapes or read books by the very popular Paul Dunn or Hartman Rector). I haven't downloaded or listen to Bro. Andrus' tapes for the same reason (I am still a bit of an iconiclast and am somewhat averse to cults of personalities), though I won't discourage others from doing so if they see fit.

My only caution to others would be to keep one's eye single towards heaven, and trust most in God and those he has chosen to lead and guide us back to him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

From rumors I've heard, my understanding is that Andrus got in trouble over the following issues:

1- Adam-God related issues

2- Preaching that we should have a personal relationship with Christ--to which B R McConkie apparently objected, as found in his "Eight Deadly Heresies" speech.

3- Advocating the purported revelations of an LDS woman (about last-days related things (?)). Andrus apparently believed in the authenticity of this woman's revelatory claims, and was trying to get them accepted by the Church.

I must emphasize that I don't have any first-first hand knowledge on these issues, but these are the issues I've heard about from generally reliable sources.

[David Bokovoy]

Advocating the purported revelations of an LDS woman (about last-days related things (?)). Andrus apparently believed in the authenticity of this woman's revelatory claims, and was trying to get them accepted by the Church.

This is the one that I am familiar with.

[David T]

Was just listening to the BofM lecture on the 'New Birth'. Very good, blunt, and applicable message making clear (what has been repeated in quite a few recent General Conferences, like this and this and this) that the 'being born of the spirit' or 'born again' experience is not to be equated alone with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but is the process of the spirit actively working within you to cleanse and empower and change you.

As much as this message has been taught recently, I still think far too many Mormons equate being 'born again' alone with the ordinances of being baptized and receiving the gift of the holy ghost.

[rockslider]

Was just listening to the BofM lecture on the 'New Birth'. Very good, blunt, and applicable message making clear (what has been repeated in quite a few recent General Conferences, like this and this and this) that the 'being born of the spirit' or 'born again' experience is not to be equated alone with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but is the process of the spirit actively working within you to cleanse and empower and change you.

As much as this message has been taught recently, I still think far too many Mormons equate being 'born again' alone with the ordinances of being baptized and receiving the gift of the holy ghost.

The Pedersen letter really drives this point home. I'm entering my photo copied version of this letter into MS Word. It is fairly long. I know that Br. Pedersen would not want this posted on the internet. I spoke with him on the phone several months back and he mentioned he had gone to great lengths to try and make sure all copies of the letter had been destroyed.

I might email it to some, if/as the spirit might dictate. I believe it provides great insights into what motivated many of us during that very challenging era, which led to the splinter groups etc. In fairness to those that did the Manti exodus and the Paul Tascano's of the world, somewhere, history should preserve this.

Please realize one thing, it was the cream of the crop - as it were - who were actively pursuing this re-birth of the Spirit. Appears some made it, others splintered, other's faded and fell asleep. Getting out of the boat is dangerous business, but is required of us (by my understandings).

Bill, thanks for the information. The woman/dream stuff is new to me. But I believe your list is likely accurate.

[ERayR]

beActually, I suspect that there were no "specific" teachings that were referenced when he was asked to cease his "educational seminars" (or whatever they were called) among the Saints. It has en my experience that the discernment of spiritual dissonance seldom takes the form of detailed understanding. Rather, it consists of a largely unarticulated sense that something is not consonant with the voice of the Spirit. This describes quite well the sense I experienced while listening to portions of the tapes I had downloaded: a strong sense that Br. Andrus was setting himself up as a uniquely qualified authority while yet leaving the subtle implication that the church had "taken a wrong turn" somewhere along the way and it was therefore necessary to perform a course correction--and he, without ever explicitly saying so, was making it clear that the Lord had provided him with the proper coordinates.

Having been around during that period the GA's actually asked that all seminars and study groups not approved by local authorities cease. There was a lot of private study groups holding meetings and a lot of false doctrine and personal opinion being taught which led to a lot of appostasy. A lot of members were breaking off into groups of personal interpretations. Meldrumites anyone?

[rockslider]

3- Advocating the purported revelations of an LDS woman (about last-days related things (?)). Andrus apparently believed in the authenticity of this woman's revelatory claims, and was trying to get them accepted by the Church.

I would also like to note that my trial of faith dealt with failed personal revelation, which had come in such a powerful, powerful way. This also seems to be a recurring theme to those that truly seek the face of God, and seems to be another aspect of the trial of contradiction.

As you grow in personal revelation, you soon learn that action based on the revelation is required of us, so as to grown and progress in its concepts. This often puts us into situations where we are required to go purely on faith and really hang it out there. I have respect for those that exercise the faith required to really hang it out there.

Let me try and explain a bit more with my first real experience with personal revelation. While praying one evening, the still small voice instructed me, quite clearly, to go to the Temple and find a room to pray in. The very next morning, 5am I'm at the Provo temple ready to find the room, and the angels that surely awaited me. The, can I call it assembly line, left me sitting back in the locker room much too quickly, having been encourage to move along by the sweet sisters lining the way.

I sat in the tiny closed locker, praying my heart out as to how to proceed, how to find the room. Brass heavens. 45 minutes later, I walked out feeling foolish and discouraged. It was a beautiful spring morning and as I walked out of the temple and towards my car, the sidewalk leading behind the Provo temple caught my eye and I walked out back. Alone, and surrounded by the beauty of the gardens, I looked up and saw "Holiness to the Lord", and the Spirit hit me

[wenglund]

I would also like to note that my trial of faith dealt with failed personal revelation, which had come in such a powerful, powerful way. This also seems to be a recurring theme to those that truly seek the face of God, and seems to be another aspect of the trial of contradiction.

As you grow in personal revelation, you soon learn that action based on the revelation is required of us, so as to grown and progress in its concepts. This often puts us into situations where we are required to go purely on faith and really hang it out there. I have respect for those that exercise the faith required to really hang it out there.

Let me try and explain a bit more with my first real experience with personal revelation. While praying one evening, the still small voice instructed me, quite clearly, to go to the Temple and find a room to pray in. The very next morning, 5am I'm at the Provo temple ready to find the room, and the angels that surely awaited me. The, can I call it assembly line, left me sitting back in the locker room much too quickly, having been encourage to move along by the sweet sisters lining the way.

I sat in the tiny closed locker, praying my heart out as to how to proceed, how to find the room. Brass heavens. 45 minutes later, I walked out feeling foolish and discouraged. It was a beautiful spring morning and as I walked out of the temple and towards my car, the sidewalk leading behind the Provo temple caught my eye and I walked out back. Alone, and surrounded by the beauty of the gardens, I looked up and saw "Holiness to the Lord", and the Spirit hit me

[ERayR]

I had a similar revelatory experience, though not in relation to going to a room in the temple (it is too personal to explain here what all it involved, but suffice it to say that it entailed traveling a considerable distance). But, through the course of fulfillment of the revelation, I learned the important concept of distinguishing what is revealed from what I interpret (or misinterpret) from the revelation. I had been told by God to do something, and I had mistakenly extrapolated from that simple request all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. To me the revelation, itself, was undeniably true, but my extrapolations failed. Now, I am much more careful about adding to or taking away from God's revelations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm still learning but it is exciting.

[rockslider]

I had a similar revelatory experience, though not in relation to going to a room in the temple (it is too personal to explain here what all it involved, but suffice it to say that it entailed traveling a considerable distance). But, through the course of fulfillment of the revelation, I learned the important concept of distinguishing what is revealed from what I interpret (or misinterpret) from the revelation. I had been told by God to do something, and I had mistakenly extrapolated from that simple request all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. To me the revelation, itself, was undeniably true, but my extrapolations failed. Now, I am much more careful about adding to or taking away from God's revelations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly, like I mentioned, my immediate "extrapolation" of that experience was, Room?!, I'll bet angles need to talk to me in that room, why else would God want me to go to a room in the Temple?

Funny part is, some of the "extrapolations" actually are part of it. That darn in God's time stuff is what tends to throw a wrench in the works.

Fall down, get back up, rinse and repeat

[wenglund]

Exactly, like I mentioned, my immediate "extrapolation" of that experience was, Room?!, I'll bet angles need to talk to me in that room, why else would God want me to go to a room in the Temple?

Funny part is, some of the "extrapolations" actually are part of it. That darn in God's time stuff is what tends to throw a wrench in the works.

Fall down, get back up, rinse and repeat

[ERayR]

Right.

And, as ErayR said, it is exciting.

To me, most exciting of all is when our Father takes the training wheels off our spiritual bikes, and leaves us to ride for a time on our own, with the heavens seemingly closed or made of brass as you said. Not only do we get a sense for what it was like for Christ on the cross, but we also get an inkling of what it is like to be a Father who has been proficiently riding his spiritual bike unassisted for eternity. Fun stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It also gives us lessons in and tests of our own abilities. We begin to understand what God expects us to do for ourselves instead of being like a toddler or a spoiled child always asking him to do it dor us. We learn to do to the extent of our abilities then to ask for his help with the rest.

[rockslider]

I would love to have DCP weigh in on the matter

[aka]

From rumors I've heard, my understanding is that Andrus got in trouble over the following issues:

1- Adam-God related issues

2- Preaching that we should have a personal relationship with Christ--to which B R McConkie apparently objected, as found in his "Eight Deadly Heresies" speech.

3- Advocating the purported revelations of an LDS woman (about last-days related things (?)). Andrus apparently believed in the authenticity of this woman's revelatory claims, and was trying to get them accepted by the Church.

I must emphasize that I don't have any first-first hand knowledge on these issues, but these are the issues I've heard about from generally reliable sources.

I remember hearing that Elder McConkie was calling out George Pace (a BYU religion faculty member) concerning his writings/teachings about developing a personal relationship with Christ. Perhaps Elder McConkie was condemning both Andrus and Pace in his Heresies speech.

Or perhaps my memory may be incorrect about George Pace being the target.

[David T]

Just listened to the lectures on Justification, Sanctification, The Holy Order, and Law of Zion.

Can't say there's much in there I disagreed with at all. Very well presented.

[David T]

I find specifically poignant the point he repeatedly made: it's okay to disagree in theory with with the keyholders, but at the end of the day, you should still heed their counsel and be obedient and respectful in deference to the keys in which they hold.