Lds Author Spreads False Doctrine On A National Scale...?

[cinepro]

BYU Religion Professor (and blogger?) Robby Millett shares this story:

A number of years ago a particular book was sweeping the country and eliciting special interest among Latter-day Saints. Though it was written by a Latter-day Saint, it was released by a national publishing house, and thus its popularity and its sales swelled. Within about a year after its release, it was not uncommon to hear the book discussed in priesthood and Relief Society meetings, sacrament meetings, and youth firesides.

While I am a real sucker for new books, for some reason I was a bit slow in purchasing a copy of this book and even slower about reading it. I was not very far into the work before I began to be troubled with what I found. Though the story line was fascinating and the details made for interesting consideration, the doctrinal messages, shallow and disguised as they were for those of other faiths, were off target; I began, in fact, to make notes of problematic parts of the book. I took my rather unofficial review and filed it away.

He later has a conversation with an unnamed General Authority about the book's doctrinal problems:

I then began to recite what I considered to be the doctrinal flaws of the book, expressing with each item where I felt the book was at odds with the principles of truth that have been set forth in the standard works or revealed through modern apostles and prophets. The words that followed are indelibly impressed upon my soul. He said, “It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be when it comes to printed material like this. Our lack of doctrinal depth and gospel understanding in general makes many of us an easy prey to every passing craze.”

Any guesses what book he might be referring to?

His use of the word "sucker" seems to be code for the book "Twilight", but somehow, I can't imagine Millet reading, critiquing and blogging about it.

Edited September 23, 2011 by cinepro

[Rob Bowman]

BYU Religion Professor (and blogger?) Ron Millett shares this story:

I believe that's Robert (Bob), not Ron.

I get that sometimes as well.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

He is referring to Betty Eadie's book, "Embraced by the Light"

Edited September 23, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr

[cinepro]

I believe that's Robert (Bob), not Ron.

I get that sometimes as well.

Fixed it. Thanks Ron.

[David T]

I'm pretty sure the book is Embraced by the Light. Orson Scott Card wrote his thoughts on this back in 1994 in his LDS Newsletter, 'Vigor'. (skip down to the article: A New Age Testament: A Mormon Reader Looks as Embraced by the Light)

EDIT: BookofMormonLuvr already got it, I see

Edited September 23, 2011 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

He is referring to Bettie Eadie's book, "Embraced by the Light"

I had forgotten about that book. It was all the rage 20 years ago, and it definitely has plenty of unconventional ideas in it about the afterlife. That's probably it.

Interestingly, there's a new book along those lines that seems to be getting popular:

(The subtitle says "A little boy's astounding story of his trip to heaven and back")

Edited September 23, 2011 by cinepro

[kolipoki09]

Any guesses what book he might be referring to?

I wish you would have asked this question last week, because I'd be able to give you a definitive answer. Last week Dr. Millet came to Rexburg to give a forum address on the LDS use of the KJV. (Sorry, no print version yet). I was able to have lunch with Millet along with several faculty members in the Department of Religion and ask a few questions of my own.

However, I'm willing to wager that it was probably Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ, specifically the "Parable of the Bicycle."

Edited September 23, 2011 by kolipoki09

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have read "Heaven is for Real". It has several questionable Protestant ideas that show that children absorb information very young, very quickly and without parents really noticing.

[Questing Beast]

I have a copy of Embraced by the Light. I read it "20 years ago." Close enough. Eadie was a Mormon, briefly, then went off looking for more light. I have not heard a thing about her since then. I don't recall anything about the book's assertions about the afterlife that seemed blatantly false doctrine to me at the time. I accepted that Eadie had had an experience. And the exact details did not have to agree with other NDE experiences....

[cinepro]

However, I'm willing to wager that it was probably Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ, specifically the "Parable of the Bicycle."

[kolipoki09]

Yes, I really did just say that believing we can work our way into heaven with Christ just "making up the rest" of the issues we were unable to work out on our own is "false--utterly, totally, and completely" (to paraphrase Bruce R. McConkie, who had his own whoppers to deal with in both editions of Mormon Doctrine).

Edited September 23, 2011 by kolipoki09

[Calm]

I wish you would have asked this question last week, because I'd be able to give you a definitive answer. Last week Dr. Millet came to Rexburg to give a forum address on the LDS use of the KJV. (Sorry, no print version yet). I was able to have lunch with Millet along with several faculty members in the Department of Religion and ask a few questions of my own.

However, I'm willing to wager that it was probably Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ, specifically the "Parable of the Bicycle."

I agree. I don't see whatever we give to the Lord as being in the same 'coin' as what he gave for us. Using a money metaphor makes it seem like we are able to contribute to the Atonement no matter how little when the reality is that we are not in any way able to since only someone pure and sinless and perfect could do so. The parable should have just used the hug as a payment since the only real thing we can give to God is ourselves....and perhaps some odd collections of marbles, doll parts and bugs as her 'part of the payment' or her working on her bicycle skills in anticipation of receiving the bike so that she could make effective use of it. Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

Yes, I really did just say that believing we can work our way into heaven with Christ just "making up the rest" of the issues we were unable to work out on our own is "false--utterly, totally, and completely" (to paraphrase Bruce R. McConkie, who had his own whoppers to deal with in both editions of Mormon Doctrine).

Well, it was good enough to make it through correlation.

Twice.

[kolipoki09]

I agree. I don't see whatever we give to the Lord as being in the same 'coin' as what he gave for us. Using a money metaphor makes it seem like we are able to contribute to the Atonement no matter how little when the reality is that we are not in any way able to since only someone pure and sinless and perfect could do so. The parable should have just used the hug as a payment....and perhaps some odd collections of marbles, doll parts and bugs as her 'part of the payment' or her working on her bicycle skills in anticipation of receiving the bike so that she could make effective use of it.

While I maintain a great deal of respect and admiration for Robinson's other work, this one in particular seems to be off target. Not long ago during a training meeting I heard D. Todd Christofferson correct that idea (which I hear almost every time I sit through a Gospel Doctrine lesson on grace and justification), by noting that literally all of our efforts are futile when it comes to thinking we can stand before God and expect some sort of reward for being good. The reward comes through the realization and application of the atonement of Christ in our lives and casting our burdens on Him. While many Latter-day Saints use similar language, far too many don't understand what that actually means.

Anyway, I'm off to class. I'll try to post later this weekend (my family, homework, and college football are taking priority).

[ERMD]

I'm not big into the Mormon book culture, but the first thing that popped into my head was The Work and the Glory.

[Duncan]

I'm pretty sure it was Betty Eadie's book. Incidentally i gave a talk a few years ago about the love of God and how I hadn't really felt it in my life and , its changed now, but this lady in my ward came up to me in tears and she gave me a copy of Eadie's book, so I guess thank you!

[RBoylan]

Yes, I really did just say that believing we can work our way into heaven with Christ just "making up the rest" of the issues we were unable to work out on our own is "false--utterly, totally, and completely" (to paraphrase Bruce R. McConkie, who had his own whoppers to deal with in both editions of Mormon Doctrine).

Amen and Amen.

[Saints Alive]

Some would argue that "Mormon Doctrine" would fit that description

[The Nehor]

I'm not big into the Mormon book culture, but the first thing that popped into my head was The Work and the Glory.

I still giggle when I remember my Mission President describing an interview he had with a recent convert. He asked about the person's scripture reading and they confidently answered they were on Volume Four and showed him that series. He said he was able to avoid crying and/or banging his head against his desk......barely.

[Cobalt-70]

While I maintain a great deal of respect and admiration for Robinson's other work, this one in particular seems to be off target. Not long ago during a training meeting I heard D. Todd Christofferson correct that idea (which I hear almost every time I sit through a Gospel Doctrine lesson on grace and justification), by noting that literally all of our efforts are futile when it comes to thinking we can stand before God and expect some sort of reward for being good. The reward comes through the realization and application of the atonement of Christ in our lives and casting our burdens on Him. While many Latter-day Saints use similar language, far too many don't understand what that actually means.

Though I don't agree with everything Robinson says (and I don't think the bicycle parable was his best work), I'm a big fan of his. I think he's been doing a great job of getting Mormons to start thinking about classical Protestant ideas. The Book of Mormon is full of these ideas, and most Mormons don't even recognize them. How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith. If Mormons started believing again in original sin, that would take a big bite out of the theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I was a (nominal) member of a Protestant church growing up (and reasonable familiar with their extrabiblical teachings, though I was personally a pretty hardcore atheist), and I deeply disagree that the Book of Mormon teaches Original Sin (though some of the language, expressed in the cultural idiom of Joseph Smith's day, can, I admit, be confusing on this point). Moreover, I personally don't particularly mind there being a theological void between us and traditional Christians. I think the differences are significant and necessary, and I'm a little worried when we edge closer to assimilating their ideas.

(I am, of course, speaking strictly about the more abstract theology - in day-to-day practical matters I think ecumenical cooperation is all for the good, and am thankful we're no longer seen as so weird that we're not barred from, say, helping out in charitable organizations. Frankly, though, I agreed with Paul Toscano, of all people, when he said that if it weren't for the philosophical isolation imposed by polygamy, the tendency among some in the church would have been to try to assimilate back into Protestantism long ago. I don't want that, since I think part of what's so great about the church is that we're operating from within a radically different paradigm than most of the western world! Let's embrace it, yo.)

Also, I gotta say that I love Card's description of "those who tend to reject ideas that sound like "a mass of confusion'" as "the spiritual skeptics who have long formed the backbone of Mormonism." The Pratt boys, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, etc. ... good stuff.

Edited September 24, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jo1952]

I was a (nominal) member of a Protestant church growing up (and reasonable familiar with their extrabiblical teachings, though I was personally a pretty hardcore atheist), and I deeply disagree that the Book of Mormon teaches Original Sin (though some of the language, expressed in the cultural idiom of Joseph Smith's day, can, I admit, be confusing on this point). Moreover, I personally don't particularly mind there being a theological void between us and traditional Christians. I think the differences are significant and necessary, and I'm a little worried when we edge closer to assimilating their ideas.

(I am, of course, speaking strictly about the more abstract theology - in day-to-day practical matters I think ecumenical cooperation is all for the good, and am thankful we're no longer seen as so weird that we're not barred from, say, helping out in charitable organizations. Frankly, though, I agreed with Paul Toscano, of all people, when he said that if it weren't for the philosophical isolation imposed by polygamy, the tendency among some in the church would have been to try to assimilate back into Protestantism long ago. I don't want that, since I think part of what's so great about the church is that we're operating from within a radically different paradigm than most of the western world! Let's embrace it, yo.)

Also, I gotta say that I love Card's description of "those who tend to reject ideas that sound like "a mass of confusion'" as "the spiritual skeptics who have long formed the backbone of Mormonism." The Pratt boys, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, etc. ... good stuff.

I have sometimes wondered if one of the reasons the Church was instructed to embrace polygamy was so that it would create a stumbling block for purposes such as you have presented.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Though I don't agree with everything Robinson says (and I don't think the bicycle parable was his best work), I'm a big fan of his. I think he's been doing a great job of getting Mormons to start thinking about classical Protestant ideas. The Book of Mormon is full of these ideas, and most Mormons don't even recognize them. How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith. If Mormons started believing again in original sin, that would take a big bite out of the theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics.

The interpretation of original sin which the LDS give it, is extremely different than the Orthodox definition. The Orthodox belief in the Trinity, along with their pov of original sin, are two of the major interpretations of the Bible which caused me (as a Lutheran) to search for a different church.

I do agree that many LDS do not have a deeper understanding of the Bible (or sometimes, of the rest of our Standard Works). However, I have observed that the basic reason for this is that we are busy LIVING our beliefs and being examples for Christ, rather than spending a lot time studying what the nitty gritty of our beliefs look like. The important thing is that we have learned to recognize and be led by the Holy Ghost. I believe we are where we need to be in our personal journey, as the active members generally manifest a wonderful relationship with God. As we are ready and prepared, the Holy Ghost does reveal Truth to us. In the line upon line, precept upon precept progression, I believe each of us can reach a point in our learning that our ability to receive more and more Light becomes almost as though it were exponential. At least this has been my humbling and awesome experience. When this happens, our joy becomes even that much greater----when our cups quite literally overflow. And each new rung on the ladder we reach (as Joseph Smith explained it), brings us that much more not-previously imagined moments of oneness with our Father and with our Beloved Savior. Praise God, for we are truly blessed!!

Regards,

jo

Edited September 24, 2011 by jo1952

[Robert F. Smith]

However, I'm willing to wager that it was probably Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ, specifically the "Parable of the Bicycle."

The problem with that is that it was published by Deseret Book (Millet said that it was a national publisher). In any case, I just read it for the first time last week, and found no problems in it, unless it was the fact that Robinson left out the significance of the Jewish sacrificial rites at the Temple.

[zerinus]

The real issue is not about "working out our own salvation," but about keeping God's commandments. Those are two different concepts. The Protestants have introduced the former idea into the discussion as a red herring in order to obscure and escape their obligations under the latter requirement. Throughout the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, as well as in modern revelation, the requirement has been laid out in uncompromising terms that we must repent and keep God's commandments or we cannot be saved. That is in spite of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Atonement we could not have been saved at all, with or without repentance. In fact, without the Atonement we could not have repented at all. The Atonement has made possible our repentance, and the keeping of God's commandments; and that is a necessary requirement for salvation. I like the way the Book of Mormon has said it:

.

Mosaiah 4

:

.

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.