Book Recommendation

[Steve Noel]

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

"We have no doctrine" has become a catch phrase for some individuals is my opinion of its use.  The Church has definite doctrines, yet it does not have a catechism or a specific body that independently determines doctrines and publishes their decrees.  We have no list of all doctrines taught or to be believed by members.  By independent the intent is to distinguish a group separate from the prophet and apostles who are empowered to define doctrine and reveal revelation on behalf of the Church itself.  The individual disciple of Jesus Christ must expand their knowledge of Jesus Christ and never stop in learning truth.  How can one limit truth and doctrine?

I agree with others that Robinson & Blomberg's "How Wide the Divide?" is a good place to start.  It sets the stage for the additional books for an Evangelical.  

Oh, that we could each real all the books that we would like.  There are so many from such a vast array of sources.  It is great to create lists and work at checking them off.  

Thanks for this. I regularly long for more time to read and study. I think I am struggling with this perspective because I equate doctrine with truth. To me saying "we have no doctrine" is tantamount to saying truth is relative. I understand your point about not having a body of teaching that is independent. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It is online.  It focuses more on scripture for supportive quotes and removes some of the speculation in the previous text.  It has been out since 2006 or so iirc.  It is also in my opinion better written, removing redunacies for example, but that in itself is not why you should use it, just a nice benefit of using it.

I think mine is a bit older. It is a combo book. It is a "Missionary Reference Library" book containing "Truth Restored" by Gordan B. Hinckley and "Gospel Principles." 

[Steve Noel]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would highly recommend starting with Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People.  It is a great overview of Mormonism written in 2012 for a general audience by a very talented scholar.  http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-People-Making-American-Faith/dp/081298336X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459356511&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mormon+people

I would also recommend Brian Whitney's web site, http://mormonismincontext.org/  Great resource and overview of the history of Mormonism.   

Thank you for these recommendations. I was hoping for some historical recommendations.

[Steve Noel]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Thank you. They did mention the "Preach my Gospel" book. 

[Steve Noel]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think we are arguing, but we may be speaking past one another.  The Church is not a fount of unending doctrine addressing all points from beginning to end as other churches have in their catechism.  The Church has bedrock, or foundational doctrines.  Beyond that point the Church may teach some things as doctrine, but not require them of its membership.  In this context I think we agree completely with one another.  We preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected can in many ways be are most fundamental teaching because it opens the door to so many other doctrines and teachings.  The door to doctrine is open and is not closed or limited in any way.

I am a member of the Assemblies of God (A/G) denomination. When this denomination (they don't like that term, they prefer "fellowship") formed in 1914 their intention was to not have creeds or formal doctrinal statements. This didn't last long as ministers in the denomination started teaching that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Today these folks are known as "Jesus only," "Oneness Pentecostal," or "Apostolic Pentecostal"  churches. In response to this the A/G formulated their "16 Fundamental Truths" as a general rule of fellowship. This caused those who were teaching falsehoods about God to leave the fellowship. 

Isn't there a similar situation in Mormonism? Can one be considered a Mormon and believe that Jesus is the Father?

[Steve Noel]

54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The internet is giving voice to people with unconventional views who express them unreservedly alongside their insistence that they are still "faithful LDS".   

This articulates my concern very well. This is what I am getting at when I seek to know what is "official" LDS belief. Can I know, as an outsider, if what I am being taught is a fringe belief or mainstream? Are there essential beliefs that one cannot reject and remain a faithful Mormon? 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

I am grateful for so many recommendations here. I am encouraged to see several recommending the books of Robert Millet. I have these books from Dr. Millet:

The Mormon Faith
A Different Jesus?
Getting at the Truth
Sustaining and Defending the Faith (w/ Jospeh Fielding McConkie)
Bridging the Divide (w/ evangelical pastor Greg Johnson)
Modern Mormonism (on my Kindle)

I tend to collect books that I want to read "some day."  Every Christmas and birthday I ask for Amazon gift cards so I can buy more books. Now if i can convince my wife that I need some more... hmmm.

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This perspective is new to me. I will read through the link you provided. Part of what I'm trying to understand here is how much weight to give to the writings of LDS scholars and apologists. I went to Mormon.org and asked the missionaries about this perspective on Mormons having no doctrine. They told me it was misinformation and that what Ostler said was irrelevant. They then said the General Authorities and the Scriptures are the authorized source of LDS doctrine. They pointed me to the Gospel Topics essays at LDS.org and told me about the upcoming General Conference. To an outsider it appears that there are different "Mormonisms" within the LDS church. I recently read THIS long blog post by Dr. Roger E. Olson on his meetings with BYU scholars. He seems to imply that there is "official" Mormonism, BYU Mormonism, and lay Mormonism. I think this is what I'm trying to figure out.

Coming back to the subject of Robert Millet, it should be pointed out that it's possible that he has occasionally overreached in his efforts to build a bridge between Evangelicals and Mormons, so keep in mind that he might sometimes be "massaging" sources and quotes and LDS teachings to make them more palatable to a non-Mormon audience.

 

This blog post is an interesting view on efforts that can be taken to build such a bridge:

http://www.equip.org/article/the-bridge-or-the-beehive-mormon-apologetics-in-a-postmodern-age/

 

 

 

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

This is what I'm wrestling with here. This is what I mean by what is "official" LDS belief? Can I know, as an outsider, if what I am being taught is a fringe belief or mainstream?

In absolute terms, no.  Once you get past the very basic and unfalsifiable doctrines such as those in the Articles of Faith (although depending on how precise you want to be, articles #6, 7, 10 and 12 all have an asterisk on them), you'll probably find at least some LDS who would argue against a teaching being "Doctrinal", no matter how many times it is taught in the scriptures or by LDS Church leaders and official publications.

The common saying is that trying to define "Official LDS Doctrine" is like trying to nail jello to the wall.  But that doesn't stop some people from trying.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

The missionaries aren't wrong. My advice is to look at what the Church itself teaches, rather than relying on the pronouncements of message board gadflies like mfbukowski (whose views often fall well outside of mainstream Mormonism).

Does this mean that "mainstream Mormonism" has more cachet?  And is that what your anthropomorphized Church teaches?  Both notions appear to me to be fallacies (on a par with vox populi vox Dei), and you might better advise us of particular works which contain that authentic Mormonism.  You seem to be doing some of that as follows:

Mormon youth and young adults receive 4–8 years of religious instruction in the 9 basic doctrines outlined here: https://www.lds.org/manual/basic-doctrines/basic-doctrines?lang=eng. These doctrines are reinforced in Sunday classes that use the Come, Follow Me curriculum. Church educators are charged with teaching "the doctrines and principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets," so Mormons do have doctrine.

As has been pointed out before, the CES charge to teach "the doctrines and principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and the words of the prophets," means to teach Scripture and not catechism.  You cite http://seminary.lds.org/about/purpose?lang=eng , and fail to note that the primary objective of CES personnel there is to preach the Gospel by living it and relying on Scripture -- which is a very open-ended, interpretation-based approach, with the most important ingredient being the Holy Spirit.  Thus, it is the preaching or proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel which is foremost, not systematic doctrinal or theological speculation, such as is found in other religious groups (which, unlike us, have professional seminaries).  Indeed, it may well be, that Bishop Bukowski has more to say of relevance on this board than many another participant, both because (1) he is a professional philosopher and theologian, (2) a former Roman Catholic, and (3) has also been a caring bishop for this Church.  He actually understands the discourse.

Naturally, there is plenty of speculative doctrinal and theological writing out there, but which contains the authentic world of God, if any?

Bergera, Gary J., ed., Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine (SLC: Signature Books, 1989).

Givens, Terryl L., and Steven C. Harper, A History of Mormon Theology (forthcoming, ).

Harrell, Charles R., “This is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (SLC: Kofford Books, 2011). 

McConkie, Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine (SLC: Deseret Book, 1978).

McMurrin, Sterling M., The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion: And, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, Signature Mormon Classics (SLC: Signature Books, 2000).

Ostler, Blake T., Exploring Mormon Thought, 4 vols. (SLC: Kofford, 2001-2013).

 

[cinepro]

Also, if you're interested in how Mormon Apologetics plays out inside the wider world of Mormon Orthodoxy, this is a good article from 12 years ago.

DEFENDING THE KINGDOM, RETHINKING THE FAITH: HOW APOLOGETICS IS RESHAPING MORMON ORTHODOXY

(For reference, the group "FARMS" referred to in the article was a publishing group at BYU that focused on Book of Mormon scholarship and apologetics through the 1990s and 2000s.  It was later re-named to the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute", and its mission was re-focused away from apologetics a few years ago.)

[Steve Noel]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Coming back to the subject of Robert Millet, it should be pointed out that it's possible that he has occasionally overreached in his efforts to build a bridge between Evangelicals and Mormons, so keep in mind that he might sometimes be "massaging" sources and quotes and LDS teachings to make them more palatable to a non-Mormon audience.

 

This blog post is an interesting view on efforts that can be taken to build such a bridge:

http://www.equip.org/article/the-bridge-or-the-beehive-mormon-apologetics-in-a-postmodern-age/

 

 

 

I have seen several evangelicals who are suspicious of Millet. Some would not characterize his approach as charitably as you have here. Others are convinced that he is being complete forthright. There is quite a bit of tension between these two groups. Both tend to criticize the way the others approach Mormonism.

[Kevin Christensen]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I didn't say those things didn't exist, I was only pointing out that they weren't a "voice" in the Church.  30 years of Sunstone and Dialogue weren't enough to get the Church to write the essays.  It was the internet that did that.

 

But the biggest difference is that in the pre-internet era, all those things were underground, and on the fringe.  The internet is giving voice to people with unconventional views who express them unreservedly alongside their insistence that they are still "faithful LDS".   

So you think Spencer Kimball didn't read even one Lester Bush essay in Dialogue in 1973?  Or that the BYU Bookstore with its stock of Sunstones and Dialogues for sale next to BYU Studies and Journal of Mormon History is "underground" and provided no meaningful "voice."  Putting complete runs of the journals in the bound periodicals section of the library is not exactly the same thing as clicking "mute"

I have held in my hands the issue of the 1968 Improvement Era that provided the first photographs of the famous papyrii, and a long series of articles discussing the issues.  And it was in tracking down all the issues of Nibley's 29 part series there that led me to Allen's detailed essay on the First Vision accounts in the April 1970 Improvement Era (which has had three equivalent sequels in the Ensign so far), and Richard L. Anderson's essay on the witnesses.  Even FARMS started up before the internet, and it seems that we did provide some voice and dealt with all sorts of issues.  I bought my copy of Mountain Meadows Massacre at the Deseret Book across the street from the Salt Lake City Temple.  I still keep my 1985 Ensigns with the articles on changes in the D&C.  And of course, there were The Tanners and historians in past as well.

The institutional arms of the Church, are just that "arms" appendages, tools... not "The Real and Only True and Blindingly Official and Authoritative Church Upon the Face of the Whole Universe Upon Whose Advice We Can Rely and the Only Actors of Significance in the Great Drama We Call Life and Upon Whose Every Action We Must Focus Our Full, Rapt Attention."  The other voices have been there all the time, and there have been people responding all the time.   All it ever took, I found, was enough interest and motivation to seek out what was there.

Treating the "essays" as if they were a completely new thing, (the first vision accounts for instance, having been discussed in The Improvement Era in 1970, several times in the Ensign, published in BYU Studies and in several editions of Bachman's books and sold in Deseret Book, where I got mine) only demonstrates what happens to perspective if you ignore history.

Just my opinion, of course, but it happens that I've lived through almost 62 years of the relevant history including the rise of the internet.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I am a member of the Assemblies of God (A/G) denomination. When this denomination (they don't like that term, they prefer "fellowship") formed in 1914 their intention was to not have creeds or formal doctrinal statements. This didn't last long as ministers in the denomination started teaching that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Today these folks are known as "Jesus only," "Oneness Pentecostal," or "Apostolic Pentecostal"  churches. In response to this the A/G formulated their "16 Fundamental Truths" as a general rule of fellowship. This caused those who were teaching falsehoods about God to leave the fellowship. 

You may be interested in contacting Prof. John Christopher Thomas, who is director of the Centre for Pentecostal Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary (PTS), Cleveland, Tennessee.  We have had the pleasure of hosting him a couple of times in recent years here in Provo, Utah, when he delivered extraordinary lectures on Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.  A very friendly and fun, insightful guy

Isn't there a similar situation in Mormonism? Can one be considered a Mormon and believe that Jesus is the Father?

Of course. This is a basic Mormon doctrine:  https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/mosiah-15-16?lang=eng .

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

 Are there essential beliefs that one cannot reject and remain a faithful Mormon?

I would say so.
And there are also beliefs which if publicly advocated can get you excommunicated.
But you can believe what you like personally if you keep your mouth shut.

And that's ok - every organization has the right to set rules for membership.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have seen several evangelicals who are suspicious of Millet. Some would not characterize his approach as charitably as you have here. Others are convinced that he is being complete forthright. There is quite a bit of tension between these two groups. Both tend to criticize the way the others approach Mormonism.

In some cases, as with Millet's close friendship with Richard Mouw (former pres of Fuller Theological Seminary), there are those who believe that Millet has actually been perceived by Mouw as giving theological ground -- especially on grace -- so that Mouw and other evangelicals think that they can bring Mormonism back into the maintstream by increments, and actually change Mormon theology (as has been done with the RLDS Church, which has become a Protestant denomination).

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

............................................................................

Just my opinion, of course, but it happens that I've lived through almost 62 years of the relevant history including the rise of the internet.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

62 years?  But you look so young in that photograph, Kevin.

[Steve Noel]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I am not familiar with Dr. Thomas but it looks like he is publishing a book on this:

https://www.createspace.com/6109060

 

[Steve Noel]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In some cases, as with Millet's close friendship with Richard Mouw (former pres of Fuller Theological Seminary), there are those who believe that Millet has actually been perceived by Mouw as giving theological ground -- especially on grace -- so that Mouw and other evangelicals think that they can bring Mormonism back into the maintstream by increments, and actually change Mormon theology (as has been done with the RLDS Church, which has become a Protestant denomination).

Roger Olson is saying the same thing about Millet. I shared this long blog post earlier in the thread about Olson's meetings at BYU:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/is-mormonism-christian-long-but-everyone-interested-in-mormonism-should-read-this/
 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for this. I regularly long for more time to read and study. I think I am struggling with this perspective because I equate doctrine with truth. To me saying "we have no doctrine" is tantamount to saying truth is relative. I understand your point about not having a body of teaching that is independent. 

Joseph Smith used to say: "We have no creed save it be all truth" (Sunday morning, Jan 1, 1843; cf. his clerk’s Rough Draft Notes for the Manuscript History: “L.D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist," B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, V:215; "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may," HC, V:499, July 9, 1843).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for these recommendations. I was hoping for some historical recommendations.

Leonard Arrington's The Mormon Experience is excellent, though missing out on the last 30 years and the good work of the Joseph Smith Papers and such.

[Steve Noel]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Leonard Arrington's The Mormon Experience is excellent, though missing out on the last 30 years and the good work of the Joseph Smith Papers and such.

That is another that I own but haven't read.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am grateful for so many recommendations here. I am encouraged to see several recommending the books of Robert Millet. I have these books from Dr. Millet:

The Mormon Faith
A Different Jesus?
Getting at the Truth
Sustaining and Defending the Faith (w/ Jospeh Fielding McConkie)
Bridging the Divide (w/ evangelical pastor Greg Johnson)
Modern Mormonism (on my Kindle)

I tend to collect books that I want to read "some day."  Every Christmas and birthday I ask for Amazon gift cards so I can buy more books. Now if i can convince my wife that I need some more... hmmm.

My favorite Millet book is "Jesus Christ, A Sure Foundation." LOVE it. 

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

This blog post is an interesting view on efforts that can be taken to build such a bridge:

http://www.equip.org/article/the-bridge-or-the-beehive-mormon-apologetics-in-a-postmodern-age/

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing this article. I was not aware of it. Bill McKeever & Eric Johnson are from Mormonism Research Ministries. They were the ones I was thinking about when I mentioned those who were critical of Millet and those evangelicals engaging in these dialogues. 

[Calm]

It is a better read than the Church's own Church History in the Fullness of Times, but the latter is the textbook for the CES church history course and you appear to be looking for the more typical LDS POV, so you might prefer it.

It is also available online at lds.org for free