Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[Loran Blood]

I also worry about his apparent agreement with the dichotomy presented that worship unites and doctrine divides. Jesus Christ himself was a divider and one cannot worship until one is "divided" out from the man-made doctrines and philosophies of the world. The only way not to have contention about the doctrine is for all to believe the same doctrine and worship (in the hierarchical Church sense) in the same way and that requires division.

This must be true by definition. True doctrine divides us from each other to the degree any among us embrace false or incoherent doctrine. Light is always divided from darkness. Its the teaching of the Two Ways, simply put.

I do agree that we have a certain presentism about the ancients and their scripture, but understanding Judaism to better understand the NT, for example, is not going to fundamentally change our current understanding of critical theological issues though such might certainly give some added depth and personal meaning.

Precisely. Its a useful and productive adjunct study to the core study of the gospel itself, but although it expands our understanding of restored doctrines on the periphery, and clarifies or "fills in" conceptual gaps here and there, it alters little if anything at the center.

The reason why this is so is because much of our current understanding is from modern revelation. Is God going to reveal to us "moderns" something fundamentally different from what he revealed to the ancients? I think not.

Any doctrines or gospel history known to the ancients but still lost to us, when revealed, will be a perfect "fit" with the doctrine and history already known, as it will be, by its very nature, simply missing pieces of a much larger but unified puzzle.

I think Kerry's problem is doctrine which he says in the beginning of the video is not defined in the work in his hand which he is so excited about. His problem therefore becomes the same problem he says Millet and McConkie have in that they think they are preaching the "true doctrine of the kingdom" and disparage the "intellectuals". Isn't Kerry doing the same thing? The fact of the matter is that doctrine is defined by the Church and it's A-OKAY for Millet and McConkie to produce works that, in their opinion, harmonize with the Gospel and it is A-OKAY for Kerry to do the same, so long as all of them produce a disclaimer that they are not speaking for the Church. And since the Church has defined doctrine as official publication, there is a ready made disclaimer for every published work.

Do we not come into apostasy if we ignore what the Church has established and ignore how doctrine comes about? Would that not tell us how little we actually accept the truth claims of the Church if we deign to present our own ideas as what the Church really means? Perhaps we all come under this condemnation to some degree or another but we can certainly discuss it here (somewhat).

Exactly the danger my post speaks to above.

[Loran Blood]

I agree that the Nephites were no more mormon than was the church Jesus established.

The Nephites were members of the true Church of Jesus Christ restored by Lehi, who stood at the head of a dispensation. As to core doctrine, they were no different from "Saints" in any other era or time, irregardless of other cultural differences.

[BCSpace]

I agree that presentism is pervasive within Mormon scholarship, and is detrimental. But the problem is not that we fail to read the Book of Mormon in some mythical ancient Mesoamerican context. Rather, the problem is that we fail to read it within the 19th century New England Protestant context in which it was written. The Book of Mormon does not, actually, have much Mormonism in it. The book is thoroughly Protestant. The best way to get a deeper and, I think, more religiously beneficial understanding of the Book of Mormon is to learn about New England Protestantism circa the 1820s.

This begs far to many questions for a short reply, but suffice it to say that this is a textbook representation of the standard Dialogue/Signature Books narrative of BofM origins that stands as living testimony to the dangers, not of the intellect, but of its misuse once decoupled from revelation, testimony, and faith.

I can't help but think that to strongly prefer to read the BoM in any historical context might lead one to deny the truth claims of the Church. In this case, reading in a 19th century New England Protestant context begs the question, "Did God restore the Church through JS or is the LDS church merely a Protestant offshoot?" The same could be said of reading the NT in a Jewish context.

Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong with such contexts and I do think they are good to explore, but the concern I have is are these truths good for all contexts as the truth claims of the LDS Church imply, or just certain ones and not for eternity?

My own opinion is that whether first century Jew or 18th century Protestant or 4th century Mesoamerican, the revelations of God were meant to take one out of one's historical context into a higher order of things.

Perhaps this is too strong a criticism of Cobalt-70's opinion which is not meant to be a criticism at all. Perhaps I'm just seeing too far down the road to be reasonably accurate in my prediction of apostasy by going in this direction but it is something I perceive to be happening to some; for example, those who can strip historicity from the BoM and still think it is from God.

Edited December 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[rameumptom]

I haven't seen Kerry's video, but knowing Kerry, I can just imagine how strong it was. But then, so was Elder McConkie. Elder McConkie over-reached in his teachings. If you don't believe this, just read about the controversy behind his first edition of Mormon Doctrine. Only the prophet is to interpret scripture, with the apostles falling in line. The apostles are to be witnesses of Christ. Elder McConkie came from a long line of General Authorities (Joseph Fielding Smith was his father-in-law) who attempted to establish their personal beliefs as doctrine, even when other apostles disagreed (Widstoe, Talmage). If you read Elder McConkie's Seven Deadly Heresies, you basically read what Joseph F, and Joseph Fielding Smith also vigorously taught. Yet, it was not Church doctrine. What Elder McConkie wrote to Eugene England was glaringly wrong. England was not to teach his concepts as doctrine, nor could he, as he wasn't in an authoritative position to state, "thus sayeth the Lord." But neither was Elder McConkie in a position to do so on his own, either. He ran way faster than the prophets he was responsible to, and it has taken us decades to move away from many of his positions (evolution, blacks and priesthood, grace and works, etc). Note, that some of his stances changed in his last years of life (such as priesthood), but little of it was amended in his early works. Mormon Doctrine was not updated in a way to clearly explain the wrong teachings in the earlier editions, for example.

Reality now has it that the General Authorities do not extend themselves out in speculation and authoritative teaching as once they did. Since the 1980s, we've seen the Church authorities stay with teaching the core doctrines, and leaving things like evolution alone. I think the 1978 revelation was a key turning point, after so many of the GAs had written and spoken about their belief in the curse of Cain and the blacks not receiving the priesthood until the Millennium: it all put a black eye on the Church. And the Church and its members still feel the sting frequently, as outsiders still quote Elder McConkie and others concerning such things to this day.

I recently blogged about the problem of us overdoing the concept of "likening the scriptures unto us". We miss out on very important concepts the ancient prophets wanted us to know, simply because we do the lazy thing by only reading a modern interpretation of scripture. And, in fact, I believe that is what got some General Authorities of the past in some trouble, when they tried to interpret scripture out of context or too literally sometimes. And when a member reads something written in an authoritative manner from a General Authority, like Elder McConkie, it tends to be seen as accepted doctrine of the Church, even when it isn't. Personally, as much as I love Elder McConkie's later writings, I wish every member would toss out their 50 year old copies of Mormon Doctrine, and get some newer writings from living prophets and apostles! I would match one living Pres Monson or Elder Holland to one dead Elder McConkie any old day.

I follow the prophets and apostles, not because they are scripture experts, but because they hold the keys and special witness of God. They have defined doctrine, and especially "core doctrine" at the LDS.org news site. I wish they would have used that decades ago, it would have reduced a lot of the confusion we experience today.

Today, the scripture experts are at BYU and in other scholarly realms. We need to consider and study what they write, not because their writings are authoritative or absolutely correct, but because they can help guide us towards a better understanding of what is really in our scriptures. Meanwhile, the General Authorities can authoritatively teach us the commandments and the gospel of Christ from the authoritative position they hold.

http://www.millennialstar.org/over-doing-likening-the-scriptures-unto-us/

[BCSpace]

Note, that some of his stances changed in his last years of life (such as priesthood), but little of it was amended in his early works.

And he bent on evolution in his Seven Deadly Heresies.....

I follow the prophets and apostles, not because they are scripture experts, but because they hold the keys and special witness of God. They have defined doctrine, and especially "core doctrine" at the LDS.org news site. I wish they would have used that decades ago, it would have reduced a lot of the confusion we experience today.

Today, the scripture experts are at BYU and in other scholarly realms. We need to consider and study what they write, not because their writings are authoritative or absolutely correct, but because they can help guide us towards a better understanding of what is really in our scriptures. Meanwhile, the General Authorities can authoritatively teach us the commandments and the gospel of Christ from the authoritative position they hold.

Well put. You said what I wanted to say with far fewer words.

Edited December 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

And he bent on evolution in his Seven Deadly Heresies.....

Wait a sec...this is "bending"?

Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?

Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled "The Origin of Man" as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Nephi 2:22­26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

If he was "bending", then what was heresy #2?

Edited December 28, 2011 by cinepro

[Duncan]

I LOVE all three genteman, I have had some very good dealings with all in the past. I try, with some hopeful success, to get at what is true and not who is true and to not pigeon hole people. I buy Millet and McConkie sight unseen though if the topic is something I like.

[rameumptom]

Insisting on reading the Book of Mormon as only a 19th century historical sense is to give it short-shrift. Yes, there probably are 19th century anachronisms in it. But there are a lot more ancient concepts within it to show that it definitely is an ancient book. I suggest a reading at Feast Upon the Word blog to see posts regarding the Book of Mormon by Joe Spencer, Jim Faulconer, and me, among others. You will quickly see that it is a very deep book, with many issues involved. I discuss, among other things, the Documentary Hypothesis and the Book of Mormon - something Joseph Smith and the people of his day would not likely have known anything about, as the DH became a major study only after it was developed and introduced by Graf and Wellhausen (in Germany) after Joseph Smith's death.

Other ancient concepts, such as theophany, anthropomorphism of God, ascension rites, etc., were definitely not in the early 19th century realm of ideas.

feastupontheword.org

[BCSpace]

If he was "bending", then what was heresy #2?

Check this out:

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Nephi 2:22­26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

First blue highlight: He asks whether or not the "theories of men" can be harmonized with doctrine.

Second blue highlight: Instead of answering yea or nay to the first highlight, he says we should seek for answers. In other words, the first question is not answered.

Third blue highlight: He relegates the notion that evolution conflicts with doctrine to his own opinion rather than doctrine. Could he have been recently reminded of the Church's 1931 statement or been presented with a reasonable working hypothesis on how evolution does not conflict with doctrine?

That is the bending.

So while this speech is not a doctrinal one, it does give insight about BRM's own possible changing insight; that harmonization might indeed be possible.

So what was the heresy? That was mentioned earlier; that evolution precludes the Fall or God or God's hand in creation. That's the beauty of my own hypothesis. I make the airtight case that evolution precludes none of those things and therefore I have done exactly what BRM asks me to do. Airtight that is, in the sense that neither cinepro or anyone else has yet to poke a hole in it.

Edited December 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[Loran Blood]

My own opinion is that whether first century Jew or 18th century Protestant or 4th century Mesoamerican, the revelations of God were meant to take one out of one's historical context into a higher order of things.

This gets to the crux of things. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[why me]

But all he did was establish a new circle of "formal freedom"; the Restored Church. The real questions are did he do it with God's sanction and guidance and if so, is there any more "authentic" freedom to be had?

Looking at it from a neutral position, one can claim that he brought a revolutionary perspective to traditional chistian thought. And it was here that he was a practicing authentic freedom. Now, what we can see in many other churches, is an exercise in formal freedom. To add a restoration and not a reformation to the lds church puts in the authentic category.

[why me]

My own opinion is that whether first century Jew or 18th century Protestant or 4th century Mesoamerican, the revelations of God were meant to take one out of one's historical context into a higher order of things.

Or we can say that revelations from god were to take one out of formal freedom and into a more authentic freedom since god's revelations are meant to take us outside the box. at times. For example: the pharisees and the jewish elite had difficutles with christ's authenticity of views if we consider formal and authentic freedom.

[Loran Blood]

Elder McConkie came from a long line of General Authorities (Joseph Fielding Smith was his father-in-law) who attempted to establish their personal beliefs as doctrine, even when other apostles disagreed (Widstoe, Talmage).

I'm not sure whether this is at all fair. That they taught personal opinions in an authoritative tone is not arguable, but if they had actually tried to "establish" their own ideas as doctrine, they wouldn't have just published books like "Mormon Doctrine" from Bookcraft, which was never in any sense an official arm of the Church, but would have gone to the General Authorities themselves and attempted to have their ideas accepted by the councils of the Church and taught as such. To my knowledge, none of them, including McConkie, who humbly submitted to the concerns of David 'O McKay et al as to the problems with Mormon Doctrine, made any attempt to insert themselves and ideas ideas into the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in any official manner. McConkie was quite within his rights as an Apostle to stump for his own unique theological interpretations at Bookcraft, well outside the precincts of official church sanction, and the Saints have long had keys and a clear template in determining which doctrines are "official" and established, and which can be accepted provisionally or rejected as unbinding.

What Elder McConkie wrote to Eugene England was glaringly wrong. England was not to teach his concepts as doctrine, nor could he, as he wasn't in an authoritative position to state, "thus sayeth the Lord." But neither was Elder McConkie in a position to do so on his own, either. He ran way faster than the prophets he was responsible to, and it has taken us decades to move away from many of his positions (evolution, blacks and priesthood, grace and works, etc).

I don't agree. It is also well beyond the purview of LDS members to teach their own doctrines as doctrine to the degree they claim or insinuate that those doctrines are binding and in some sense more authentic and correct than that which has thus far been revealed. McConkie's views on evolution and the priesthood ban are hardly centered in him, and are a vestige of theological speculation from a past generation that had little else to go on and was embedded in the assumptions and cultural norms of that generation. In any case, his views on evolution were always in contention from other prominent GAs, over time, so there was no reason for the Saints as a whole to have gone whole hog after his ideas unless they felt compelled to do so for their own reasons. He never dominated the discourse there, as the Church had, since the 1920s, clear, official statements regarding evolution that are not compatible with the views of Elder's McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith.

Reality now has it that the General Authorities do not extend themselves out in speculation and authoritative teaching as once they did. Since the 1980s, we've seen the Church authorities stay with teaching the core doctrines, and leaving things like evolution alone.

Leaving evolution alone dates from the fist third of the 20th century, not the 80s

I think the 1978 revelation was a key turning point, after so many of the GAs had written and spoken about their belief in the curse of Cain and the blacks not receiving the priesthood until the Millennium: it all put a black eye on the Church. And the Church and its members still feel the sting frequently, as outsiders still quote Elder McConkie and others concerning such things to this day.

Let them, as the entire doctrine was about lineage, not about "race" (whatever that is), and the opinions of single apostles in non-church publications never had the imprimatur of settled, binding doctrine.

I And when a member reads something written in an authoritative manner from a General Authority, like Elder McConkie, it tends to be seen as accepted doctrine of the Church, even when it isn't.

Then I would encourage less intellectual sloppiness on the part of those members, and less backhanding of legitimate General Authorities who expressed their human frailty by sometimes going beyond accepted doctrine and stumping for their own ideas. The very forum you are now in has a long history of LDS intellectuals doing precisely and exactly that.

I follow the prophets and apostles, not because they are scripture experts, but because they hold the keys and special witness of God. They have defined doctrine, and especially "core doctrine" at the LDS.org news site. I wish they would have used that decades ago, it would have reduced a lot of the confusion we experience today.

So would Paul's extensive and hyperbolic statements emphasizing grace. We are limited by our language and conditioned by the exigencies of the message we intend to convey, and the audience to whom we speak.

Today, the scripture experts are at BYU and in other scholarly realms. We need to consider and study what they write, not because their writings are authoritative or absolutely correct, but because they can help guide us towards a better understanding of what is really in our scriptures. Meanwhile, the General Authorities can authoritatively teach us the commandments and the gospel of Christ from the authoritative position they hold.

This is confused. So then the prophets are not scriptural experts, but only academic scholars are. The General Authorities are only to teach us the "commandments" and the "gospel of 'Christ, but not the scriptures.

I see.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Storm Rider]

I agree that presentism is pervasive within Mormon scholarship, and is detrimental. But the problem is not that we fail to read the Book of Mormon in some mythical ancient Mesoamerican context. Rather, the problem is that we fail to read it within the 19th century New England Protestant context in which it was written. The Book of Mormon does not, actually, have much Mormonism in it. The book is thoroughly Protestant. The best way to get a deeper and, I think, more religiously beneficial understanding of the Book of Mormon is to learn about New England Protestantism circa the 1820s.

The more I read these types of comments the more I fear for the scriptural and doctrinal ignorance of the membership and those interested in studying the LDS movement. The Book of Mormon is not Protestant and it is not germane to the teachings of New England's specific spin on the any doctrine. This position is the lazy critic's view of something beyond their comprehension and thus in reading a limited number of verses proclaims they understand the book. Sloppy review devoid of understanding is the only by-product that is possible and it is exactly what is offered up.

Unfortunately, as is so evident in the world, almost anyone can can a following and this drivel obviously gains its blind followers. Of course, I am also one that believe stupidity is a disease and needs to be abolished as soon as possible. Read and don't stop reading the Book of Mormon until you actually understand what it says i.e. never stop.

[Cobalt-70]

The Nephites were members of the true Church of Jesus Christ restored by Lehi, who stood at the head of a dispensation. As to core doctrine, they were no different from "Saints" in any other era or time, irregardless of other cultural differences.

The Book of Mormon did not say that Lehi "restored" any church. It just describes Lehi as an obscure Israelite prophet contemporary to Jeremiah, who kept practicing his Hebrew religion in the New World. It's just that the Book of Mormon teaches that ancient Hebrew religion was basically the same as early 19th century Methodism (with a few Calvinist elements thrown in), but that the Christian elements of ancient Hebrew religion were lost in the apostasy.

[Cobalt-70]

This begs far to many questions for a short reply, but suffice it to say that this is a textbook representation of the standard Dialogue/Signature Books narrative of BofM origins that stands as living testimony to the dangers, not of the intellect, but of its misuse once decoupled from revelation, testimony, and faith.

What is the danger of reading the Book of Mormon in a 19th century context? The book itself says that it was written for people in the latter days (meaning, the 1820s onward). If the Book of Mormon answers lots of early 19th century Protestant controversies, then I'd say the book is performing its stated objective.

[Cobalt-70]

I can't help but think that to strongly prefer to read the BoM in any historical context might lead one to deny the truth claims of the Church. In this case, reading in a 19th century New England Protestant context begs the question, "Did God restore the Church through JS or is the LDS church merely a Protestant offshoot?" The same could be said of reading the NT in a Jewish context.

Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong with such contexts and I do think they are good to explore, but the concern I have is are these truths good for all contexts as the truth claims of the LDS Church imply, or just certain ones and not for eternity?

My own opinion is that whether first century Jew or 18th century Protestant or 4th century Mesoamerican, the revelations of God were meant to take one out of one's historical context into a higher order of things.

Perhaps this is too strong a criticism of Cobalt-70's opinion which is not meant to be a criticism at all. Perhaps I'm just seeing too far down the road to be reasonably accurate in my prediction of apostasy by going in this direction but it is something I perceive to be happening to some; for example, those who can strip historicity from the BoM and still think it is from God.

I think the greater danger is that if you are trying to read the book in a Mesoamerican historical context, your Mormon faith will be dependent on the shifting sands of Mesoamerican pseudohistory. But if you read the book, not as a history, but as a religious treatise and myth, you can see that the book answers specific modern theological questions which were current during Smith's lifetime. It is easier to understand the answer if you know what the question was.

[Nominee]

Insisting on reading the Book of Mormon as only a 19th century historical sense is to give it short-shrift. Yes, there probably are 19th century anachronisms in it. But there are a lot more ancient concepts within it to show that it definitely is an ancient book. I suggest a reading at Feast Upon the Word blog to see posts regarding the Book of Mormon by Joe Spencer, Jim Faulconer, and me, among others. You will quickly see that it is a very deep book, with many issues involved. I discuss, among other things, the Documentary Hypothesis and the Book of Mormon - something Joseph Smith and the people of his day would not likely have known anything about, as the DH became a major study only after it was developed and introduced by Graf and Wellhausen (in Germany) after Joseph Smith's death.

Other ancient concepts, such as theophany, anthropomorphism of God, ascension rites, etc., were definitely not in the early 19th century realm of ideas.

feastupontheword.org

I just finished reading "The Book of Mormon and the Documentary Hypothesis" yesterday. It was very interesting. I am subscribed to the Feast upon the Word Blog and enjoy it very much.

[Cobalt-70]

Other ancient concepts, such as theophany, anthropomorphism of God, ascension rites, etc., were definitely not in the early 19th century realm of ideas.

Theophanies were common in the early 19th century. The Book of Mormon does not describe God anthropomorphically, except in the context of Jesus, which makes the book no different from the rest of Christianity. I don't think that there is any discussion of ascension rites in the Book of Mormon.

[Duncan]

What is the danger of reading the Book of Mormon in a 19th century context? The book itself says that it was written for people in the latter days (meaning, the 1820s onward). If the Book of Mormon answers lots of early 19th century Protestant controversies, then I'd say the book is performing its stated objective.

that would be fine if you lived in the 1820's but we of today don't. The Book of Mormon is more universal then that, it says "Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations" title page

[Cobalt-70]

The more I read these types of comments the more I fear for the scriptural and doctrinal ignorance of the membership and those interested in studying the LDS movement. The Book of Mormon is not Protestant and it is not germane to the teachings of New England's specific spin on the any doctrine. This position is the lazy critic's view of something beyond their comprehension and thus in reading a limited number of verses proclaims they understand the book. Sloppy review devoid of understanding is the only by-product that is possible and it is exactly what is offered up.

I don't think I'm guilty of sloppy reading. I have read the Book of Mormon very carefully and slowly, many times, cover to cover, and have spent far more time studying individual topics in it, both religiously and academically (or both). The difference is, I have also studied Protestant theology in a historical context, something that most Mormons have not done, so many Mormons don't realize just how early 19th century Protestant the book is, particularly in comparison to modern Mormonism.

That is interesting but completely off-topic. You will be thread banned if you derail with another post about 19 century Protestants.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Minos

[Glenn101]

I don't think I'm guilty of sloppy reading. I have read the Book of Mormon very carefully and slowly, many times, cover to cover, and have spent far more time studying individual topics in it, both religiously and academically (or both). The difference is, I have also studied Protestant theology in a historical context, something that most Mormons have not done, so many Mormons don't realize just how early 19th century Protestant the book is, particularly in comparison to modern Mormonism.

Could you enlighten us a bit more? Was nineteenth century Protestantism all that homogeneous? Does the Book of Mormon the predestination Protestantism of Calvinism, or the doctrines of the Methodists, the Baptists, or Presbyterians? Os is it a bit from this one and a bit from that one?

Thanks,

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

I think that he is refering to the tone of Kerry and Glenn. There tends to be a shouting tendency.

We are all free to express our opinions, and whether or not we agree or disagree, but it is definitely bad form, in my opinion to be strident in criticism of any General Authority.

I think the better approach would be simply to state your opinion and let others draw their own conclusions without making attacks.

[Ron Beron]

This really shouldn't be about personalities, but about the material within the video. I know Kerry fairly well and he would love to debate the contents of his ideas.

[cinepro]

Check this out:

First blue highlight: He asks whether or not the "theories of men" can be harmonized with doctrine.

Second blue highlight: Instead of answering yea or nay to the first highlight, he says we should seek for answers. In other words, the first question is not answered.

Third blue highlight: He relegates the notion that evolution conflicts with doctrine to his own opinion rather than doctrine. Could he have been recently reminded of the Church's 1931 statement or been presented with a reasonable working hypothesis on how evolution does not conflict with doctrine?

That is the bending.

So while this speech is not a doctrinal one, it does give insight about BRM's own possible changing insight; that harmonization might indeed be possible.

So what was the heresy? That was mentioned earlier; that evolution precludes the Fall or God or God's hand in creation. That's the beauty of my own hypothesis. I make the airtight case that evolution precludes none of those things and therefore I have done exactly what BRM asks me to do. Airtight that is, in the sense that neither cinepro or anyone else has yet to poke a hole in it.

Then Elder McConkie stood in General Conference in 1985 and taught the following:

As we read, ponder, and pray, there will come into our minds a view of the three gardens of God—the Garden of Eden, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden of the Empty Tomb where Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

Bending indeed...

Edited December 29, 2011 by cinepro