Opinions About Eugene England?

[Amelia]

Did anyone here know Eugene England? Anyone have any knowledge/feelings about him?

He was my prof in 1979. An Institute director I talked to in the early 1990's said that he had fallen out of favor in the church educational system because of how he challenged impressionable undergraduate minds to deal with uncomfortable questions.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Amelia

[Bob Crockett]

I was in a junior English class where he was the prof and Clifton Jolley was his grad assistant. He was well liked by the students but from the first day it seemed he was the type who wanted to be the center of attention and used a benign adversarial stance against the Brethren as a way to get there. But don't we all want to be the center of attention. England was into being some sort of guru for his clique which I thought offensive and provincial. Jolly spent too much time telling us what a great guy was England. England was also into liberal politics in a way I thought was grandstanding, and I was a liberal Dem at the time.

I contrast his style to Leonard Arrington who was my prof the same semester. A more unassuming and modest man with an unparalleled intellect you couldn't find. Arrington demonstrated his power through his great depth of research and writing ability. I thought Eugene was generally a hack as a writer.

As an aside, Jolley is a contributor to Susnstone, recently had a son on a mission, and has left the church.

[Amelia]

Thanks.

I can see that. He was mindblowing for me as a freshman so I can't judge well. My experience was probably exactly the kind of thing the Institute director said the CES was uncomfortable with.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Amelia

[Freedom]

I understand he passed away in 2001. Apparently Bruce McConkie wrote a scathing letter rebuking Englands opinion that God is still gaining knowledge. As if we really know either way. I find this ironic considering Pres McKay wrote a letter to Bruce indicating that the book 'Mormon Doctrine' had on average 3 doctrinal errors per page. Errors that Elder McConkie never corrected. But I digress. Here is the wikipedia entry about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_England

The University of Utah holds a lecture seried in his name.

http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonstudies/england/index.html

I find his writings to be provocative and insightful but I never met the man. I know of one person who knew him personally and he did not speed well of him. I don't put much weight on this mans opinions, however, because he demonstrated the same character flaws of which he accused England. More irony.

[BCSpace]

Oh dear, haven't we rescued him enough times already."

Sorry, found that in a published version of the BRM letter to EE.

I guess I am a heretic too as I accept the possibility that God is progressing in knowledge. I find it interesting that I, independently of EE, believe something similar to the effect that relative to us God is all powerful and knowing etc. but that in another sphere, He is not or not quite. I wonder if there is something in LDS doctrine that leads people to this conclusion. Perhaps it is just human frailty in trying to understand the infinite?

I'm sure it's not because great minds think alike......

[Freedom]

I guess I am a heretic too as I accept the possibility that God is progressing in knowledge.

I think it is the influence of the credal beliefs. Is there actually a passage that says God is all knowing and all powerful? I do not know of one.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have a testimony of Eugene England.

[Mark Beesley]

Sorry, found that in a published version of the BRM letter to EE.

I guess I am a heretic too as I accept the possibility that God is progressing in knowledge. I find it interesting that I, independently of EE, believe something similar to the effect that relative to us God is all powerful and knowing etc. but that in another sphere, He is not or not quite. I wonder if there is something in LDS doctrine that leads people to this conclusion. Perhaps it is just human frailty in trying to understand the infinite?

I'm sure it's not because great minds think alike......

Whether or not the Father continues to increase in knowledge is a topic that came up in a district meeting while I was on my mission. One of the comments by the District Leader struck me as making a lot of sense. If God were continuing to increase in knowledge, then that could mean that future generations of His children might have a better chance at salvation and exaltation. How fair does that seem? More likely to my mind is that in the hierarchy of the Gods, one is only permitted to preside over the ultimate acts associated with godhood (procreation of spirit children and creation of worlds) when one has attained perfect knowledge, i.e. there is nothing more to learn. But all of this is rank speculation.

[rongo]

I have never met Eugene England, but I have read some of his writings, and I think on the whole he has been a good and valuable contributor to the cause of Zion and “the work.”

For a little balance, I am impressed with what I do know of him through means that are not widely known (or in the following specific case, not at all known). I am impressed with his demeanor, judgment, and bearing as manifested as bishop of a student ward at BYU in minutes of a disciplinary council involving a current member of my ward (the outcome was disfellowshipment). This post-dated the McConkie letter and presumably the negative anecdotes in this thread by quite a bit, and the Brethren clearly approved his serving as bishop knowing all of the things that have been discussed here and then some.

I think Eugene England and other solidly pro-Church intellectuals (e.g., B.H. Roberts, etc.) make some people uncomfortable because they are, as Roberts described, “disciples of the second sort.”

Disciples . . . in the world of religious . . . opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the disciples pure and simple,—people who fall under the spell of a person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching to get a nominal hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend: for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly be the whole truth . . . We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense. They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.

On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort . . . They . . . bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields springs up in their soil, and bears fruit,—thirty, sixty, an hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such, men are the disciples that it is worthwhile for a master to have . . . Disciples of the second sort co-operate in the works of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder stages of development."

I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half—not one-hundredth part—not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded, either to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fullness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truth received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development. (B.H. Roberts, A Defense of the Faith and the Saints 1:310).

[thesometimesaint]

Mark Bessley:

I don't know if God is learning more or has always know everything. But whatever he does know it is enough for All of us.

Mattthew 20:1-16

King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 20

¹For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

²And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

³And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

⁴And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

⁵Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

⁶And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

⁷They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

⁸So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

⁹And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

¹⁰But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

¹¹And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

¹²Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

¹³But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

¹⁴Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

¹⁵Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

¹⁶So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Edited November 12, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Freedom]

If God were continuing to increase in knowledge, then that could mean that future generations of His children might have a better chance at salvation and exaltation. How fair does that seem?

Quite simple, all decisions are done through council. One does not need to be an award winning mathematician to teach children how to add. I can teach my children how to vacuum without knowing how to build a vacuum. There is a pattern and template laid out for our mortality that has no doubt been in practice for all eternity and is a template that, perhaps, we will follow in the not too distant future. Assuming he has all knowledge is problematic since there is no scripture that says as much. It is a doctrine that we have adopted from the apostasy. Perhaps he does and perhaps he doesn't but the doctrines support neither view.

I have heard the argument from general authorities that he is growing in terms of the size of his kingdom as he has more and more children. If this is true, he clearly has no idea what it will be like to govern a domain that is 10 times larger than his current jurisdiction and he will have to learn how to it is done. The argument, therefore, is flawed in my opinion.

[kolipoki09]

I find this ironic considering Pres McKay wrote a letter to Bruce indicating that the book 'Mormon Doctrine' had on average 3 doctrinal errors per page. Errors that Elder McConkie never corrected.

President McKay's comments were referring to Elder McConkie's first edition of Mormon Doctrine. The corrections evident in the second edition (1966) suggest that Elder McConkie was concerned with removing doctrinal errors evident in the first edition.

See David A. Dye's Changes in Mormon Doctrine: A comparison of the 1958 & 1966 editions of Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie.

[Freedom]

President McKay's comments were referring to Elder McConkie's first edition of Mormon Doctrine. The corrections evident in the second edition (1966) suggest that Elder McConkie was concerned with removing doctrinal errors evident in the first edition.

See David A. Dye's Changes in Mormon Doctrine: A comparison of the 1958 & 1966 editions of Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie.

He did make a few corrections, but not nearly approaching the number that McKay noted. The book still has value, but I find all the writings of McConkie to be too literal in interpreting the scriptures, demonstrating his lack of familiarity with hebrew writing styles. An example is his position an evolution which was opposite that of McKay,

I randomly opened my 1979 addition to page 337 where he states: "Since the final Nephite degeneracy and destruction, as far as we know there has been no people on earth who have been under direct civil and ecclesiastical control of the true government of God. Rather Church and state have been seperated and administered by separate agencies...'

He is apparently unaware that for most of their civilization, there was a separation of church and state. He also fails to provide any scriptural support that the Nephites ever had the 'true government of God'. He must makes this assumption for some reason. The book has these types of doctrinal problems on every page, and I find on average 4 such errors/page.

Another random opening took me to page 274 where he defines his four purposes of family organizations. He does not provide a single reference to support his opinion on the matter and in fact he does not even consider what the book of Mormon has to say on the subject.

[LeSellers]

I randomly opened my 1979 addition to page 337 where he states: "Since the final Nephite degeneracy and destruction, as far as we know there has been no people on earth who have been under direct civil and ecclesiastical control of the true government of God. Rather Church and state have been seperated and administered by separate agencies...'

He is apparently unaware that for most of their civilization, there was a separation of church and state.

"Most of their civilization" is not the time from c. ad 35~250. Your objection is baseless.

He also fails to provide any scriptural support that the Nephites ever had the 'true government of God'. He must makes this assumption for some reason.

Anyone familiar with the accounts of late 3 and early 4 Nephi would recognize their government was "after the manner of happiness".

Consider this a scriptural reference.

Lehi

[Freedom]

"Most of their civilization" is not the time from c. ad 35~250. Your objection is baseless.

Anyone familiar with the accounts of late 3 and early 4 Nephi would recognize their government was "after the manner of happiness".

Consider this a scriptural reference.

Lehi

I searched for any reference to their government being 'after the manner of happiness' and could not fine one. This expression is found in 2 Nephi but not in 3 or 4 Nephi. In fact, there is no mention at all of their government structure and no indication that the church and state were one and the same. Regardless, I do not see the relationship between righteous living and being under the control of the Government of God. What exactly is this government of God he is talking about? There is not a single reference in the scriptures that I can find that ever mentions the doctrine 'the government of God'. Perhaps D&C 134:1 comes close but it refers to all governments: We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man'. This refers to all governments and not so some rare model that supposedly is found among the Nephites. John Taylor refers to the priesthood as the government of God so I suppose the assumption is that the civil government of the Nephites was controlled by the priesthood. But again, there is no evidence that there was no separation of church and state.

The point is, however, that Mr England was being criticized for espousing teachings that were, in the opinion of Elder McConkie, inconsistent with official church doctrine when Elder McConkie was guilty of the same.

[The Nehor]

I think it is the influence of the credal beliefs. Is there actually a passage that says God is all knowing and all powerful? I do not know of one.

• all things done in wisdom of him who knoweth all things, 2 Ne. 2:24
  
• God knows all things, there is not anything except he knows it, 2 Ne. 9:20 (Morm. 8:17).
  
• God’s revelation reveals all things from foundation of world to end, 2 Ne. 27:10
  
• the Lord knows all works in dark, 2 Ne. 27:27
  
• by help of the Creator, Jacob² can tell his people their thoughts, Jacob 2:5
  
• the Spirit knoweth all things, Alma 7:13
  
• God knows all thoughts and intents of heart, Alma 18:32
  
• God comprehends all things, Alma 26:35
  
• God is mindful of every people, Alma 26:37
  
• ye cannot hide your crimes from God, Alma 39:8
  
• God knows time when all shall come forth from dead, Alma 40:4–5, 10, 21
  
• known unto God were all their cries and sufferings, Alma 60:10
  
• Christ knows his disciples’ thoughts, 3 Ne. 28:6
  
• the Lord shows brother of Jared² all inhabitants of earth who had been or would be, Ether 3:25
  
• God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, Moro. 7:22
  

• the Lord’s eyes are on all men, D&C 1:1
  
• God alone knows men’s thoughts, D&C 6:16 (D&C 33:1).
  
• the Lord tells things no man knows, D&C 6:24 (D&C 15:3).
  
• the Lord knows all things, D&C 38:2 (D&C 130:7).
  
• the Lord knows men’s hearts, D&C 67:1
  
• the Lord comprehends all things, D&C 88:6, 41
  
• the Lord’s eyes see and know all men’s works, D&C 121:24
  
• past, present, and future are continually before the Lord, D&C 130:7
  

• all things are present with God, Moses 1:6
  
• the Lord knows all worlds that stand or have passed away, Moses 1:35
  
• the Lord tells Enoch all doings of men, Moses 7:41
  
• the Lord showed Enoch all things, unto end of world, Moses 7:67
  
• Jehovah knows end from beginning, Abr. 2:8
  
• God is more intelligent than all, Abr. 3:19
  

If you go to the Bible you can find a lot more.

Edited November 13, 2011 by The Nehor

[Mark Beesley]

Quite simple, all decisions are done through council. One does not need to be an award winning mathematician to teach children how to add. I can teach my children how to vacuum without knowing how to build a vacuum. There is a pattern and template laid out for our mortality that has no doubt been in practice for all eternity and is a template that, perhaps, we will follow in the not too distant future. Assuming he has all knowledge is problematic since there is no scripture that says as much. It is a doctrine that we have adopted from the apostasy. Perhaps he does and perhaps he doesn't but the doctrines support neither view.

I have heard the argument from general authorities that he is growing in terms of the size of his kingdom as he has more and more children. If this is true, he clearly has no idea what it will be like to govern a domain that is 10 times larger than his current jurisdiction and he will have to learn how to it is done. The argument, therefore, is flawed in my opinion.

I'm not sure how valid the argument is that the creator of worlds without number (Moses 1:33) would have to learn how to govern more worlds.

[Kevin Christensen]

Did anyone here know Eugene England? Anyone have any knowledge/feelings about him?

He was my prof in 1979. An Institute director I talked to in the early 1990's said that he had fallen out of favor in the church educational system because of how he challenged impressionable undergraduate minds to deal with uncomfortable questions.

My wife and I met him briefly, in Oakland, CA, after he delivered his talk "Easter Sermon", which I still love. ( We'd been waiting in line to say thanks, and our time to wait was running out. As we discussed this, he noticed, and excused himself to come forgo the line order and shake our hands. I thought that was exceedingly gracious on his part, both the noticing, and the taking action on what he noticed.

I'm particularly fond of his "Shakespeare and the At-Onement of Christ" essay, as well as essay on Lehi's Journey to Bountiful in Book of Mormon Authorship, and his essay on "Why Nephi Killed Laban?", which introduced me to Rene Girard and Northrop Fry, authors I have come to value highly. I love his essays on "Why the Church is as True and the Gospel" and "Enduring." I found him memorably insightful and inspiring. I'm still impressed at how fearlessly exposed himself in his personal essays, not at all going for an objective, or detached style, or one overly concerned with preserving an image, but one that attaches personal perspective to every line. He shows by example how much the willingness to risk personal vulnerability contributes to communication.

President Hinkley wrote about "Standing for Something." Eugene England did that. He stood up, and stood out, which made him both a target and an example. He made mistakes, and publicly admitted them (I'm thinking of the fuss he made in criticizing the Strengthening the Church committee). He took public, personal criticism about as well as can be done. He submitted to Elder McConkie's doctrinal criticism, and then later expressed his growing understanding that "Follow the Brethren" is not quite the same advice as "Follow the Brother." There are differing schools of thought among the LDS, and the social history involved is often as interesting and valuable as wrestling with the contraries expressed. I like his emphasis on Joseph Smith's insight that by "proving contraries, truth is made manifest." And I like his invoking William Blake's similar views during his discussions.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited November 15, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Freedom]

• all things done in wisdom of him who knoweth all things, 2 Ne. 2:24
  
• God knows all things, there is not anything except he knows it, 2 Ne. 9:20 (Morm. 8:17).
  
• God’s revelation reveals all things from foundation of world to end, 2 Ne. 27:10
  
• the Lord knows all works in dark, 2 Ne. 27:27
  
• by help of the Creator, Jacob² can tell his people their thoughts, Jacob 2:5
  
• the Spirit knoweth all things, Alma 7:13
  
• God knows all thoughts and intents of heart, Alma 18:32
  
• God comprehends all things, Alma 26:35
  
• God is mindful of every people, Alma 26:37
  
• ye cannot hide your crimes from God, Alma 39:8
  
• God knows time when all shall come forth from dead, Alma 40:4–5, 10, 21
  
• known unto God were all their cries and sufferings, Alma 60:10
  
• Christ knows his disciples’ thoughts, 3 Ne. 28:6
  
• the Lord shows brother of Jared² all inhabitants of earth who had been or would be, Ether 3:25
  
• God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, Moro. 7:22
  

• the Lord’s eyes are on all men, D&C 1:1
  
• God alone knows men’s thoughts, D&C 6:16 (D&C 33:1).
  
• the Lord tells things no man knows, D&C 6:24 (D&C 15:3).
  
• the Lord knows all things, D&C 38:2 (D&C 130:7).
  
• the Lord knows men’s hearts, D&C 67:1
  
• the Lord comprehends all things, D&C 88:6, 41
  
• the Lord’s eyes see and know all men’s works, D&C 121:24
  
• past, present, and future are continually before the Lord, D&C 130:7
  

• all things are present with God, Moses 1:6
  
• the Lord knows all worlds that stand or have passed away, Moses 1:35
  
• the Lord tells Enoch all doings of men, Moses 7:41
  
• the Lord showed Enoch all things, unto end of world, Moses 7:67
  
• Jehovah knows end from beginning, Abr. 2:8
  
• God is more intelligent than all, Abr. 3:19
  

If you go to the Bible you can find a lot more.

This is a very healthy list although many of them do not apply. For example, the fact that the Lord knows men’s hearts does not imply that he therefore is omniscient, nor does the fact that His eyes are not ours. But let’s take a look at some of the more pertinent examples. Abraham 3:19 states that God is more intelligent than all. I don’t think this means that he is more intelligent than His own Father, or the Heavenly Father before him, it is simply referring to his own domain. He is more intelligent than all those pertaining to his stewardship. In Hebrew poetry, the author will have a list in mind and will mention one or two points from this list and the reader is meant to understand that the entire list is intended. For example, the New Testament states that we are saved by grace. Latter Day Saints understand this to be one item among many. A good example in the book of Mormon is faith, repentance, baptism and enduring to the end. All the author needs to mention is the need to be baptized, and the astute reader automatically understands that the author is referring to all 4 requirements. English is no different. Someone could shout ‘Michael Jordan is the best’ and we automatically know he is referring to his skills on the basket ball court. A woman could throw her purse on the table and grumble ‘men’ and we automatically know why she is frustrated. You could say to me ‘only two things are certain’ and I would respond without missing a beat ‘death and taxes’.

In the Book of Momron, it does state that God knows all, however in many other places it qualifies his influence by referring to everything in heaven and in the earth. The scriptures also explain that God will seal everything in the heavens and in the earth. No LDS reader would assume that this means He can seal a command in the realm of other Gods, or in the realms of his own God. Rather, he can seal everything in his own heavens and earth. So, when it states that he knows all, we are to understand that he knows all to do with his realm.

The Book of Mormon also states that God created everything. Well, as Latter Day Saints, we do not take this literally either because we understand that God did not create us, nor did he create matter. It also states in the Book of Mormon that there is a heaven and a hell, however the D&C state that the notion of hell is false. It is not appropriate in my mind to take some expressions of ‘all’ as hyperbole and others as absolute literal pronouncements. Mosiah 4:9 states: believe...that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth, that he has all wisdom and all power, both in heaven and in earth``. Since we know that he did not create everything that ever was created, we can understand that this verse provides the qualifier for all other verses that refer to his creations, his knowledge, his wisdom and his power. He knows all, created all, understands all, and was control over all within his own heavens and earth.

Mosiah 15:4 states that the godhead is ‘The very eternal Father of heaven and of earth’. So when we read that he is the God of all, we know that the ‘all’ is of His heaven and earth and not that of another God.

Your reference of 2 Nephi 9:20 is also interesting:

19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from the awful monster teh devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. 20. Oh how great the holiness of our God: For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it”

He is refereeing, of course, to Jesus Christ who had not yet experienced mortality and who would yet progress from grace to grace and discover the agony of the atonement. So this example drives home the point, in my opinion, that we cannot take the expression ‘knoweth all things’ so absolutely the way the creeds would have us believe.

Bringham Young made the following comments: “Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory.”

To me, this suggests that He is still advancing and he wants us to have access to the same progression that he enjoys.

Is God still learning? I don’t know, but I don’t believe the scripture addresses the matter other than in reference to our own existence.

[Freedom]

I'm not sure how valid the argument is that the creator of worlds without number (Moses 1:33) would have to learn how to govern more worlds.

My example is not a challenge of governing more worlds but of managing the number of worlds. It is one thing to own and manage one McDonald restaurant, but altogether different to manage 100 of them. How each store is managed remains the same, but how you manage the combined volume would change and would require learning. It is a simple and perhaps imperfect example but my point it that their argument is problematic and is an attempt to justify an apparent. contradiction that only exists because of a hold-over belief from an apostate age.

But of course, your reference is interesting. clearly the words he created can be numbered, just not from our puny perspective. It is said that they are as innumerable as the stars in the sky. Well, this is a figure of speech because stars can in fact be numbered. So once again, we need to avoid taking these verses so literally. They are poetic expressions not scientific declaration.

[BCSpace]

I think it is the influence of the credal beliefs. Is there actually a passage that says God is all knowing and all powerful? I do not know of one.

IIRC, you can find somehting like it in James E Talmadge's Articles of Faith which is a doctrinal work. I'd have to search for it though......

Edited November 15, 2011 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

Did anyone here know Eugene England? Anyone have any knowledge/feelings about him?

He was my prof in 1979. An Institute director I talked to in the early 1990's said that he had fallen out of favor in the church educational system because of how he challenged impressionable undergraduate minds to deal with uncomfortable questions.

Eugene England was a great man, perhaps one of the "noble and great ones." Of course he was disliked by some CES people, but those same people disliked Hugh Nibley.

Gene started the journal Dialogue while he was at Stanford, had a great sense of humor, and constantly encouraged students and colleagues to ask serious questions and to learn everything they could about the Gospel. He was a bishop and wrote about his experience as such. He was as courageous as Daniel in the Lion's Den -- I once observed him defending the Gospel all alone in a circle of anti-Mormons in a private home in Provo (he'd been invited, and his wife fled in tears just as things were getting started). He was calm and rock solid, bearing witness by the power of the Holy Spirit. The anti-Mormons wilted.

Rather than cast aspersions on the Brethren, we ought to count ourselves fortunate that we Saints have such a breadth of talent out there, so many faithful perspectives to take account of, hopefully aiding us in working out our salvation here in this temporal existence.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, found that in a published version of the BRM letter to EE.

I guess I am a heretic too as I accept the possibility that God is progressing in knowledge. I find it interesting that I, independently of EE, believe something similar to the effect that relative to us God is all powerful and knowing etc. but that in another sphere, He is not or not quite. I wonder if there is something in LDS doctrine that leads people to this conclusion. Perhaps it is just human frailty in trying to understand the infinite?

I'm sure it's not because great minds think alike......

It is absurd to think that the pool of knowledge is somehow limited to some number of facts, the knowing of which would make one know all there is to know.

If God is the organizer of new realities, new worlds, new possibilities which have never been thought before, he MUST be progressing. If he is only organizing what is already known into more of the same old, same old, he is not God, but a machine that just keeps knocking out the same old stuff over and over again.

That's not my idea of God at all!

[Freedom]

It is absurd to think that the pool of knowledge is somehow limited to some number of facts, the knowing of which would make one know all there is to know.

If God is the organizer of new realities, new worlds, new possibilities which have never been thought before, he MUST be progressing. If he is only organizing what is already known into more of the same old, same old, he is not God, but a machine that just keeps knocking out the same old stuff over and over again.

That's not my idea of God at all!

Thanks, this is a very interesting perspective. The thought that it is more than simply creating more of the same, but of infinite creativity and innovation.

[Calm]

Creativity is often tied to high intelligence in man. I would assume that what amounts to infinite intelligence (forever expanding) would also be tied to infinite creativity.