Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) I wandered into the Deseret Book downtown store today. There's a new book on the shelves, LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference. It is written by some eminent BYU scholars: Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner and Brent L. Top.Some time ago, there was a thread on this board about Mormon Doctrine having gone out of print. From all appearances, this new book appears to be intended to fill the role once held by Mormon Doctrine, that being a one-volume, unofficial encyclopedic reference work covering the doctrinal beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. I've only had time, so far, to thumb through a copy in the store, but I look forward to exploring it.Add-on:Here's a Deseret Book blurb about the book. Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Freedom Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 This book was discussed here a few weeks ago. Robert Millet is a brilliant man but this book is just a rehash of the same old thing. There is nothing in there that cannot already be found in other books so I do not know what motivated him to write it other than as a source of income. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, all books that are written are written for profit.
David T Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Here's BCC's review of LDS Beliefs, by J. Stapley. I think he's very generous with his review. Make sure to read the comments below, too. Edited November 30, 2011 by nackhadlow
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 This book was discussed here a few weeks ago. Robert Millet is a brilliant man but this book is just a rehash of the same old thing. There is nothing in there that cannot already be found in other books so I do not know what motivated him to write it other than as a source of income. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, all books that are written are written for profit.As noted, Millet is not the only author.As far as it being a rehash, if, as it appears, it is intended to be a standard reference of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy, I wouldn't expect there to be much in there that breaks new ground or challenges conventional doctrine.There's something to be said for having a lot of information on a lot of topics in one place. That, after all, is the purpose of a reference work. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Dupe error. Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Here's BCC's review of LDS Beliefs, by J. Stapley. I think he's very generous with his review. Make sure to read the comments below, too.Interesting review. What criticisms there are seem to be well taken.
David T Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Apparently, the book uses "The Way To Perfection" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith as an authoritative resource worth quoting and referencing. This alone is significantly unacceptable. Anyone familiar with the book should understand.
Sky Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 A rather significant difference between LDS Beliefs and Mormon Doctrine is that the latter was written by a famous LDS general authority that was known to have said some controversial things. And MD underwent several revisions and corrections. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if Mormon Doctrine has done more harm than good for the Church. I hope this doesn’t end up being the case with LDS Beliefs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of any of the authors of LDS Beliefs being general authorities.I don’t doubt that LDS Beliefs is a good reference, but I don’t think it will end up being anywhere near as influential as Mormon Doctrine has been for all of these years. I hope it sticks as close to LDS orthodoxy as possible.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) I wandered into the Deseret Book downtown store today. There's a new book on the shelves, LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference. It is written by some eminent BYU scholars: Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner and Brent L. Top.Some time ago, there was a thread on this board about Mormon Doctrine having gone out of print. From all appearances, this new book appears to be intended to fill the role once held by Mormon Doctrine, that being a one-volume, unofficial encyclopedic reference work covering the doctrinal beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. I've only had time, so far, to thumb through a copy in the store, but I look forward to exploring it.I can't imagine that anything will ever be another Mormon Doctrine. The days of quasi-official reference works are in the past. For a while now, the church has been trying to root out the use of non-Correlated material from church functions. Any work that purports to catalogue Mormon beliefs ends up actually defining them. I think the LDS Church wants to have more control in defining itself. Edited November 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70
Duncan Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 something I used in a talk that I gave on sunday was the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and two people hadn't ever heard of it, It has seemingly dropped off the radar screen of you know whatever
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Dupe error.Not possible.I can't imagine anyone calling you a "dupe".
Freedom Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Why is a book like this even necessary?It fulfills a need by academics to publish without the need to perform genuine research. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I think the LDS Church wants to have more control in defining itself.Or possibly allowing us to define it. I think it would be wise for the church to stick to the basics on doctrinal matters and let the theology grow as it will. There is room for many kinds of beliefs in the church, as long as we agree on what Ostler would call "orthopraxis". That is perhaps all the control and definition that is necessary.
Kiviuq Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Do these authors have the authority to declare what is doctrine? Did anyone sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Freedom Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 A much more useful book that these clever minds could have produced would have been one that discusses ,in depth, various scriptural concepts by providing a variety of perspectives, conflicting or otherwise. For example, it would be great to have a presentation of all the various interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve, or the differences in what is taught about faith by various ancient authors. They do not need to tell us what the doctrine but if they presented all the various arguments, we could better draw our own conclusions.
LeSellers Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 A much more useful book that these clever minds could have produced would have been one that discusses ,in depth, various scriptural concepts by providing a variety of perspectives, conflicting or otherwise. For example, it would be great to have a presentation of all the various interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve, or the differences in what is taught about faith by various ancient authors. There is a limited amount of paper in the world. Then, they'd still have to go on to chapter two.Lehi
Sky Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Do these authors have the authority to declare what is doctrine?Did anyone sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators?They aren’t declaring doctrine, but rather expounding upon existing doctrine. There is a difference. But you already knew this, didn’t you?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Not possible.I can't imagine anyone calling you a "dupe". A dolt or a dweeb, perhaps, but never a dupe. But then, I haven't checked the Mormon Discussions Board lately.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 I don’t doubt that LDS Beliefs is a good reference, but I don’t think it will end up being anywhere near as influential as Mormon Doctrine has been for all of these years. I hope it sticks as close to LDS orthodoxy as possible.It's a new day. There was no such thing as the Internet, searchable electronic databases or even priesthood correlation back when Mormon Doctrine was first published.
Kiviuq Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 They aren’t declaring doctrine, but rather expounding upon existing doctrine. There is a difference. But you already knew this, didn’t you? I was referring to existing doctrine. There is often discussion in this forum about understanding what is official doctrine. I don’t expect the authors of this book to propose anything new, but I also don’t believe they have the authority or even the mandate from the top 15 to cast in stone what is “official” doctrine. Or do they?
Sky Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 It's a new day. There was no such thing as the Internet, searchable electronic databases or even priesthood correlation back when Mormon Doctrine was first published.Good point, but nonetheless, I regret the errors that were made with Mormon Doctrine that have been used to make the Church look bad. It’s not that I think Mormon Doctrine has no value. I just hope that LDS Beliefs will avoid the same mistakes. I’m confident that it will.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 I was referring to existing doctrine. There is often discussion in this forum about understanding what is official doctrine. I don’t expect the authors of this book to propose anything new, but I also don’t believe they have the authority or even the mandate from the top 15 to cast in stone what is “official” doctrine. Or do they?I agree with Sky that this is not what the authors are doing. The book carries the customary disclaimer that it does not constitute a formal exposition by the Church.That said, the teaching of doctrine is pervasive within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would be absurd to assume that only apostles or other General Authorities may appropriately teach.Moreover, each of the four authors is a member of the religion faculty at BYU and thus has a responsibility given by Church leaders to teach the doctrines of the gospel, at least as much as any other teacher in the Church. 1
Kiviuq Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I agree with Sky that this is not what the authors are doing. The book carries the customary disclaimer that it does not constitute a formal exposition by the Church.That said, the teaching of doctrine is pervasive within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would be absurd to assume that only apostles or other General Authorities may appropriately teach....Certainly other people besides the General Authorities can teach. That’s not what I’m saying.As I said, there is often discussion in this forum about understanding what is official doctrine. Do you think this book will help with this problem or does the stated disclaimer only add to this problem?Maybe the First Presidency could just sign their names after the prolog of the book after giving it the once over. I would feel good about that.
Recommended Posts