Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[Freedom]

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.

It is anachronistic to apply today's teachings and church culture on yesterday's peoples. Fundamental doctrines were likely (we cannot say definitely due to a lack of information) the same, such as the nature of God and ordinances of salvation, however I suspect that you would not recognize Nephi's church service. You would be confused by the principles that are taught and perhaps shocked by their tolerances and prejudices. Our understanding of doctrines are so clouded by our society that we do not recognize the errors until we look back a generation later. Subtle differences such as the nature of marriage, class distinctions, social graces, the role of trials or prayer and a number of other common concepts may have been so different to them that we would recognize them as being of the same religion. This is the problem with the volume in question. It finds correlations were there are none.

I raced out and got a copy of the commentary when it came out some 20 years ago and did not find any commentary in it at all. It was, as is stated in the review, full of pontifications that were justified by the occasional reference to a verse in the Book of Mormon. Many of their commentaries did not even seem to relate to the verse they linked to. This tells me that the doctrines they were teaching were not in fact found in the Book of Mormon. For example, they talk about true religion being a feeling by quoting a verse that says 'ye were passed feeling that you could not feel his words". This mormonism which finds its roots in the D&C is not a nephite doctrine, but a modern mormon doctrine. There are hundreds of examples of this in the commentary. The review touches only on the first volume. Each volume uses the Book of Mormon as an excuse to express their dogma rather than truly sharing what the Book of Mormon is actually teaching.

[Duncan]

I watched it...expletive aside, I wish he would have used to his own interpretation rather then Midgely's and await the day when Midgely or Bro. Shirts writes something better-I think Grant Hardy's book is a way better book on the Book of Mormon for all the listed reasons in the video

Edited December 29, 2011 by Duncan

[cinepro]

Good grief. He takes thirty minutes to say what could be said in five. And a more measured tone (and perhaps a little subtlety) would probably increase the effectiveness of his communication as well.

Ultimately entertaining, but also a little embarrassing. And the profanity doesn't add anything to a mormon-targeted message. The people most in need of hearing what he says will be the first to tune out or turn it off.

Edited December 29, 2011 by cinepro

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mr. Shirts is quite harsh to Bob Millet and Joseph McConkie in his latest video. All though, I agree with and like everything he says. This video really demonstrates the disconnect between chapel mormonism and academic mormonism.

It has been my experience everywhere that anyone with the name "McConkie", would be criticized for anything they say. I have never seen anyone speak of Millet this way.

[Freedom]

It has been my experience everywhere that anyone with the name "McConkie", would be criticized for anything they say. I have never seen anyone speak of Millet this way.

While I agree that the tone, and perhaps therefore the credibility of the message, should be put into question, I would suggest you read the commentary by McConkie and Millet and the referenced review. Many intelligent posters here acknowledge, for example, that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the doctrines of the gospel. This believe would not be possible if these same posters did not accept non-lds research and begin to question the statements of past church leaders. Assuming that we somehow have all the knowledge and spiritual superiority is dangerous.

If the volumes were called "Gospel Truths and the Book of Mormon" or some other title then the format would have been quite acceptable. I just found that the conclusions they draw cannot be justified by the passages they quote. This is not to say that their conclusions are false, but they certainly do not find support in the scriptures. If you make a proclamation that true religion is a feeling, then you need to provide the verse in the scriptures that states that very idea.

[mfbukowski]

Good grief. He takes thirty minutes to say what could be said in five. And a more measured tone (and perhaps a little subtlety) would probably increase the effectiveness of his communication as well.

Ultimately entertaining, but also a little embarrassing. And the profanity doesn't add anything to a mormon-targeted message. The people most in need of hearing what he says will be the first to tune out or turn it off.

Dang- is it possible that I agree with you?? This could be a first!

I don't think tone of the video does Midgley any favors either.

Edited December 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Que]

I am concerned - I hope we don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I understand and sympathize with Shirts' position that we not trivialize the Book of Mormon as merely a vehicle for modern platitudes. However, I also see examples of not injecting enough modernism into ancient times. The Book of Mormon is even an antidote to this in places - for example, baptism.

Meridian times Judaism would have us believe that thier "baptisms" were mere ritual washing practices, having nothing to do repentance and forgiveness, atonement and remission. In Justin Martyr's Dialogue he brags on this fact - that the Christian baptism was thus superior to the (then current) Jewish practices.

But the Book of Mormon shows that at least some BCE-era Israelites used water immersions in the way we do. The Book of Moses claims the practice went clear back to Adam. And I find it curious that our (admittedly Christian) report of Jewish reaction to John's baptism was lacking in outrage.

Of course, this is not a thread about baptism, but I use this as an example of why I have a personal feeling, based on this and similar examples, that as we learn more and more of what really happened in ancient times we will find that their practices were more similar to modern ones than we currently envision.

So I will read the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, and appreciate it and learn from it for what it is... but I will also understand that we as Latter-day Saints are in a unique position to intuit where there was more in ancient practice than currently meets the eye.

[BCSpace]

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.

Sure. But I don't prefer to read it while thinking about any historical context in particular and I don't think I miss anything spiritual or theological thereby. I certainly might read it thinking about a historical context from time time, but in that case, I'm not really reading it.

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.

I disagree completely. The questions are there no matter what the historical context and if you read it as a myth, then you stop believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet because you no longer accept the truth claim that the BoM is a historical work of scripture and that leads to disbelief in the Church overall. If something is mythological, then one is never sure of the truth.

It is easier to understand the answer if you know what the question was.

Always. But since the Nephites weren't 19th century Protestants and yet they apparently had the same types of questions and issues, historical context obviously doesn't matter.

Edited December 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

I normal enjoy Kerry's vidio's. But this one came accross as a RANT, and a not particularly informative one.

[The Nehor]

I disagree completely. The questions are there no matter what the historical context and if you read it as a myth, then you stop believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet because you no longer accept the truth claim that the BoM is a historical work of scripture and that leads to disbelief in the Church overall. If something is mythological, then one is never sure of the truth.

Depends on how you use the word 'myth'. I think the book of Ether is almost mythical in many of the qualities of the story but I also believe it actually happened.

Tolkien, when talking about Christianity with C.S. Lewis said that the story of Jesus is myth. It just happens to be a myth that really happened.

I do agree that an excessive emphasis on placing the Book of Mormon "in context" will cause us to miss the message. It was compiled for our day and adapted to our problems and is meant to teach us, not ancient americans more familiar with the culture, times, and customs.

Edited December 29, 2011 by The Nehor

[LeSellers]

When I read the Book of Mormon on New Year's Day (before our 1:00 Sacrament Meeting to meet our bishop's challenge to read it in the first quarter), I won't be reading for any purpose but to read all 15 books in 12 hours. (I've done it before, so I'm convinced I'll meet this personal goal.) Even so, I know I'll "discover" things I have forgotten in the text, because one cannot read this book without finding "new" truths.

When I read it at a more leisurely pace, I'll be seeking one or more of three things:

1. How does Nephi (or whichever writer) address me and my problems?
   
2. What was he concerned about among his people?
   
3. What outcome did the writer achieve, and am I likely to reach the same or an equivalent place?
   

Often 2 and 3 will be identical, but more frequently, I'll find the barest of similarities between my condition and that of the Nephites. I'm rarely, for instance, faced with God's telling me to slay an adversary, but Laban has had much in common with demons I have faced, nonetheless. Jacobs's instruction to his people in re: Plural Marriage is nothing I have to address, but his words about marriage in general found in that same Conference Talk do apply to me and my family.

Knowing that the Nephites were, at least for the most part, "orthodox" Jews prior to ad 34 makes helps me to know that Arnold Friberg was 'way off base when he painted the Nephites as clean-shaven and bare-chested. It makes Benjamin on his tower more realistic because I can see the connection between the feast of the Tabernacles and October Conference, evne though they're not the same thing.

Lehi

Edited December 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

The Book of Mormon did not say that Lehi "restored" any church.

Its church doctrine. Lehi was at the head of a new dispensation outside the Old 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.

No, the BofM teaches no such thing, and I've read it more than enough to know.

[Loran Blood]

What is the danger of reading the Book of Mormon in a 19th century context?

Because the Book of Mormon itself was not written by 19th century people in a 19th century context. The various texts that make up the entire corpus were written anywhere from 3,000 B.C. (the Jaradite record) to 400 A.D. and the context in which they were written was the cultural context of the writers themselves. The BofM peoples themselves, save the prophets who wrote, amended, and edited them, never had the BofM. It was meant for us, today, in this age. Hence, In a very real sense, the BofrM has a 19th, 20th, and 21st century context. Its speaks to us and conditions with which we deal today, and does so at least partly because the ancient cultures in which the texts that make up the BofM were written experienced equivalent, though not identical conditions.

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.

The BofM was not intended in some narrow sense to answer 19th century Protestant controversies, but to become the cornerstone of the last restoration of the Lord's church before his Second Coming, and hence far transcends issues present in the 19th century among sectarian Christianity.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

It is anachronistic to apply today's teachings and church culture on yesterday's peoples.

Only church culture, not church teaching. I think bc already pointed out why, taking settled church doctrine into consideration, this is not tenable.

[The Nehor]

The Book of Mormon did not say that Lehi "restored" any church.

Most dispensations aren't full restorations. They are still new dispensations because the head or heads of the dispensation had apocalyptic visions where they are taken to heaven and see things. In 1 Nephi it is clear that the knowledge of a Messiah was mostly gone at that point or Lehi wouldn't have had to go out and preach in Jerusalem declaring the scriptures taught his coming.

It just describes Lehi as an obscure Israelite prophet contemporary to Jeremiah, who kept practicing his Hebrew religion in the New World.

Not really. While I don't doubt Lehi was faithful in his faith the faith seems to have altered from what was generally taught. He was following the examples of other groups and going out to the desert to live his religion more exactly. It is also important to note that Lehi didn't have a full copy of the scriptures at the time. He had to acquire a set before he could leave. He wasn't particularly scripturally learned. Undoubtedly his theophany, his renewed study of the scriptures, and his ongoing revelation restored many aspects of his faith.

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.

Which apostasy? The Jewish people were in apostasy to varying degrees throughout most of their history.

I also disrespectfully disagree with your appraisal of LDS teaching as 19th century Methodism.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While I agree that the tone, and perhaps therefore the credibility of the message, should be put into question, I would suggest you read the commentary by McConkie and Millet and the referenced review. Many intelligent posters here acknowledge, for example, that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the doctrines of the gospel. This believe would not be possible if these same posters did not accept non-lds research and begin to question the statements of past church leaders. Assuming that we somehow have all the knowledge and spiritual superiority is dangerous.

If the volumes were called "Gospel Truths and the Book of Mormon" or some other title then the format would have been quite acceptable. I just found that the conclusions they draw cannot be justified by the passages they quote. This is not to say that their conclusions are false, but they certainly do not find support in the scriptures. If you make a proclamation that true religion is a feeling, then you need to provide the verse in the scriptures that states that very idea.

See highlighted: I just think on either side of this coin this is a dangerous comment to make. Who decides who the "intelligent poster" is?

Of course I still don't think a McConkie is going to get any breaks. Bruce R has been so demonized or ostracized (not sure which word is best in this context) that any who bare his name get additional criticism. I for one like Bruce R McConkie...one of the greatest sermons I ever heard was delivered by him in April or Oct 1985 entitled "the Three Gardens".

Edited December 29, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Freedom]

See highlighted: I just think on either side of this coin this is a dangerous comment to make. Who decides who the "intelligent poster" is?

I did not say all, but many. Are you suggesting that only the unintelligent posters take this position? My point is that those who do not have a problem with evolution are not idiots. We have a responsibility to read and learn from all sources. Since all knowledge comes from God, and since there is no doctrine that says only members of the church are privy to this knowledge, we can gain an understanding of all areas of academia, from the bible to biology, from both mormons and non-mormons. Quaint doctrinal quips, no matter the source, should be challenged if they are not found in the scriptures. Accepting them because they come from a scholar such as Millet, Perry or Jackson is not, in my opinion, an effective way to learn doctrine.

[zerinus]

I did not say all, but many. Are you suggesting that only the unintelligent posters take this position? My point is that those who do not have a problem with evolution are not idiots. We have a responsibility to read and learn from all sources. Since all knowledge comes from God, and since there is no doctrine that says only members of the church are privy to this knowledge, we can gain an understanding of all areas of academia, from the bible to biology, from both mormons and non-mormons. Quaint doctrinal quips, no matter the source, should be challenged if they are not found in the scriptures. Accepting them because they come from a scholar such as Millet, Perry or Jackson is not, in my opinion, an effective way to learn doctrine.

Not having a testimony does not make someone an idiot; but it does put them at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

[altersteve]

Not having a testimony does not make someone an idiot; but it does put them at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

Having a testimony does not give you any kind of "advantage." The gospel is not a competition.

[zerinus]

Having a testimony does not give you any kind of "advantage." The gospel is not a competition.

Competition or not, having a testimony certainly does put you at an advantage, compared to someone who doesn't.

[altersteve]

Competition or not, having a testimony certainly does put you at an advantage, compared to someone who doesn't.

No it doesn't. Please give an example.

Either way, claiming to have an "advantage" over anyone else because of your beliefs is a rather arrogant and very unchristian thing to say.

[LeSellers]

Competition or not, having a testimony certainly does put you at an advantage, compared to someone who doesn't.

While I agree with your statement above (and even repped the post), I disagree with the notion that having a testimony is somehow connected with rejection of evolution, or that accepting evolution equates to not having one. Unless and until the Church issues a doctrinal statement putting all forms of evolution out-of-bounds for us to believe, there is nothing any Saint should say in regards to evolution and testimony in the same sentence (aside from this one, of course).

I may have misread your earlier message(s), but that's how it sounded to me.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

No [having a testimony certainly does not put you at an advantage, compared to someone who doesn't]. Please give an example.

The first two or three Temple Recommend interview questions are all about testimony. "Do you believe in God, .... Do you have a testimony of ...?"

Without a testimony, you cannot enter the Temple. In fact, however rudimentary it may be, you can't even get baptized without a testimony.

Seems cut'n'dried to me: both of these are serious advantages.

Lehi

Edited December 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

No it doesn't. Please give an example.

Either way, claiming to have an "advantage" over anyone else because of your beliefs is a rather arrogant and very unchristian thing to say.

A testimony is ultimately a form of knowledge--and a peculiar and special kind of knowledge--and possessing any type of knowledge puts you at an advantage over someone who doesn't. If you want an example, Here is one:

Matthew 16:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

To be "blessed" is to have an advantage over someone who is not so "blessed". If Simon Peter was "blessed" by virtue of having had that testimony, that means that he had an advantage over someone who wasn't "blessed" as he had been.

[The Nehor]

No it doesn't. Please give an example.

If maintained a testimony leads to exaltation. The lack of one maintained in this life and the next leads to damnation.

Either way, claiming to have an "advantage" over anyone else because of your beliefs is a rather arrogant and very unchristian thing to say.

This is ridiculous. Do non-racist beliefs confer an advantage over racist ones? Does belief in the equal partnerships of genders confer an advantage over misogyny or misandry? Does belief in physics confer an advantage over belief in hermetic magic? Does belief that God desires us to love him confer an advantage over believing God wants us to give him the still-beating hearts of our enemies?

I hold that all the former have an advantage over the latter. Does this make me arrogant and unchristian?

In the same way I am convinced that the LDS faith is an accurate representation of reality. I maintain that it teaches the facts. If I am right then a testimony will confer an advantage over those who choose a false or even less true view of the world and everything in it.

I would have to be mad (knowing what I know) to even entertain the thought that all belief systems are equal.