Is Talmage's Jesus the Christ outdated?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Personally, I love the book wouldn't want it to be replaced.  As far as i know it's still a part of the reference library, but I bet they use the revised edition.

I think these days they allow you to use whatever version you care to bring along.

In fact, I don't think they require you to bring it. I don't remember whether our boy had a copy when he left nearly two years ago. In fact I remember somebody saying don't worry about getting them beforehand, that you can probably get a copy left behind by some missionary who was there before you.

I'm guessing copies are available for purchase at the MTC..

On my mission, I carried Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith (hardbound, one was a copy my mother had) and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (pocket-size). But nobody ever asked me if I had them, and I don't recall them ever being referred to in zone conferences or study time and such.

The absolutely essential work for missionaries these days is Preach My Gospel. And the scriptures, of course.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that is doubtful. I now have strong suspicions He was born in the fall. However, He did get crucified at that time - of the Passover. I note that the gospels are silent about any passover happenings at the time of His birth. Everyone was in commotion because they had to travel to their appointed places to be taxed - nothing about the Passover. The normal time to be taxed would be after the harvest.

Duncan was being coy. And cinepro was being snide

They both know that some scholars in the Church now doubt the April 6 date. They were pokng fun at Elder Bednar, who in his conference sermon they linked to, repeated the conventional Mormon belief that the April 6 date was given by revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Most life changing book of my life, other than the Book of Mormon itself.  It is very dependent on 19th century protestant biblical commentaries, but a great place to see the gospel in perspective and gain testimony of the gospel.  If it gets people asking questions about biblical scholarship, at least they are asking questions about the Bible.  

Exactly.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that is doubtful. I now have strong suspicions He was born in the fall. However, He did get crucified at that time - of the Passover. I note that the gospels are silent about any passover happenings at the time of His birth. Everyone was in commotion because they had to travel to their appointed places to be taxed - nothing about the Passover. The normal time to be taxed would be after the harvest.

I think there's good evidence for it being in April since tax day is April 15.  But I also think the reason there was no room in the inn could have been related to people being in town for the Christmas holidays, so I think a December date is also possible.  Even to this day Bethlehem is tremendously popular around Christmas time.

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Duncan was being coy. And cinepro was being snide

They both know that some scholars in the Church now doubt the April 6 date. They were pokng fun at Elder Bednar, who in his conference sermon they linked to, repeated the conventional Mormon belief that the April 6 date was given by revelation.

Yes, I'm sure Elder Bednar thought he was repeating the conventional wisdom and he didn't think he was stating a fact:

Quote

May each of us do and become better through the Savior’s Atonement. Today is April 6. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Ouch!  Thorp says LDS have a systematic theology.  In his very first sentence in the article.  If mfbukowski sees this, he ain't gonna be pleased...

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

Actually, Thorp doesn't say that.  What he says is that Talamge was one of three writers to helped to "systematize LDS theology."   No systematic LDS theology has ever been written, and Bukowski and I have frequently explained why that is unlikely to happen.  For starters, see my piece on “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes, I'm sure Elder Bednar thought he was repeating the conventional wisdom and he didn't think he was stating a fact:

 

I never denied he thought he was stating a fact. 

You're on a hair trigger today, cinepro. Stand down. 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Why would any believing LDS consider outdated a book that was commissioned by the first presidency to be written and space provided in the temple to complete the task?

Link

[Five Solas]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Thorp doesn't say that.  What he says is that Talamge was one of three writers to helped to "systematize LDS theology."   No systematic LDS theology has ever been written, and Bukowski and I have frequently explained why that is unlikely to happen.  For starters, see my piece on “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

I'll make reply on RevTestament's new thread on the topic.

--Erik

[Duncan]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Duncan was being coy. And cinepro was being snide

They both know that some scholars in the Church now doubt the April 6 date. They were pokng fun at Elder Bednar, who in his conference sermon they linked to, repeated the conventional Mormon belief that the April 6 date was given by revelation.

if you go into stand up comedy you should open with that I was pointing out that not everyone accepts the April 6th date, not that Elder Bednar is a yutz for accepting it

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that is doubtful. I now have strong suspicions He was born in the fall. ..............................................

You are correct, Rev.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you go into stand up comedy you should open with that I was pointing out that not everyone accepts the April 6th date, not that Elder Bednar is a yutz for accepting it

Well apparently RevTestament and Robert have it all figured out and have handed down the definitive word. 

[bsjkki]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Duncan was being coy. And cinepro was being snide

They both know that some scholars in the Church now doubt the April 6 date. They were pokng fun at Elder Bednar, who in his conference sermon they linked to, repeated the conventional Mormon belief that the April 6 date was given by revelation.

Yes, that is the conventional belief. I don't believe arguing this point in Sunday School would go well for me. 

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well apparently RevTestament and Robert have it all figured out and have handed down the definitive word. 

you'll hardly get any laughs with that line down at UpChuckles tsk tsk tsk

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Ouch!  Thorp says LDS have a systematic theology.  In his very first sentence in the article.  If mfbukowski sees this, he ain't gonna be pleased...

;0)

--Erik

___________________________________

You don't know me from the wind
You never will, you never did
I'm the little Jew
Who wrote the Bible

--Leonard Cohen "The Future"

Uh, no he doesn't. He actually does NOT say that. 

Quote

JAMES E. TALMAGE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY VIEWED as one of the three European immigrants who were influential in systematizing LDS theology in the early twentieth century

Being INFLUENTIAL in SYSTEMATIZING is not creating a systematic theology.

 Aquinas did systematic theology and showed one theory that explained both the unity of the trinity and transubstantiation using one theory that was also incidentally used in alchemy which was the science of his day.  Imagine Einstein explaining God and science all in one shot.  THAT is systematic theology and the greatness of Aquinas.  I disagree now what- 800 years later, but DANG THAT was one smart dude!

Systematic theology is an attempt to explain everything in one theory using epistemology and metaphysics, philosophy of science and language, to come up with a kind of "theory of everything in 5000 words or less" based on a religious view.

Talmadge did a lot to systematize but that is not systematic theology.

And besides, that article is nearly 30 years old! 

Even I throw away a suit when it gets that old!

A lot has happened in the church since then

Edited June 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no he doesn't. He actually does NOT say that. 

Being INFLUENTIAL in SYSTEMATIZING is not creating a systematic theology.

 Aquinas did systematic theology and showed one theory that explained both the unity of the trinity and transubstantiation using one theory that was also incidentally used in alchemy which was the science of his day.  Imagine Einstein explaining God and science all in one shot.  THAT is systematic theology and the greatness of Aquinas.  I disagree now what- 800 years later, but DANG THAT was one smart dude!

Systematic theology is an attempt to explain everything in one theory using epistemology and metaphysics, philosophy of science and language, to come up with a kind of "theory of everything in 5000 words or less" based on a religious view.

Talmadge did a lot to systematize but that is not systematic theology.

And besides, that article is nearly 30 years old! 

Even I throw away a suit when it gets that old!

A lot has happened in the church since then

And there it is. Blowing up cobwebs. Creating an uncluttered workspace.

[stemelbow]

It was the only book written in the temple.  So that it has become outdated suggests something, perhaps, about spiritual inspiration and prophecy in our latter-day.  That it largely relied on 19th Century previous works also means, we often don't know where to look for the best scholarship--or at least they didn't.  Now, that's not to say it is not a good book, nor that we should avoid it at all.  It just means what it means--we, as a Church, carry no special privilege with God when it comes to understanding Him and His ways.  It'll always be we lack more than we know.  There'll always be room to improve.  And, virtually, nothing is a settled issue when it comes to the spiritual world and our ideas concerning it. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's great, Kevin. Thanks.

Isn't Jesus the Christ still very influential in establishing the Christology the church still maintains today?

For example, isn't it JtC that cements the idea of Jesus being the Jehovah of the Old Testament?

There are some interesting questions.  It feels to me that the Christology of the Church today remains very close to what it was in Talmage's day.  The Church certainly seems less influenced by scholarship, overall, than Talmage was when he wrote his book.  I enjoyed the first piece linked by Duncan above, as it concerns this issue.  Even Talmage was unwilling to consider the voices of some scholarship in his day, because to him, their voices couldn't possibly carry credibility.  Sadly for his presumption then and the Church's now, perhaps in part as a result, that same direction of scholarship is what the Church is missing in its work on anything regarding Christology.  Someday, we'll start to catch up though.  It seems like conservative religions like ours detest the concept dynamic so much we, in so doing, reject the "grand fundamental principle" of the religion Joseph is said to have created--accepting truth no matter it's source. 

I do hope Kevin chimes back in on this.  I'm curious about his take. 

[Johnnie Cake]

I loved Jesus the Christ by Talmage...I loved the stories of how Talmage would work in one of the upper rooms in the SL Temple with his coffee pot close by to keep him supplied with fresh brew so he could work his long hours in writing his book.  I can imagine how wonderful it would have been for patrons to be greeting in the morning with the aroma of fresh coffee brewing as they entered the Temple.  I also understand that he keep a bottle of good Kentucky bourbon in his desk in the temple as well to soften those long nights of work....but that's just unsubstantiated rumor. But I do know that he did enjoy a good cigar now and then...I just don't know if he smoked it in the Temple or not...but I like to think he did.  One rumor I've read is that his upper Temple room was scattered with cigar butts...so perhaps there is some meat on that bone.

It is also said that being in the Temple allowed Talmage to receive revelation regarding the contents of his book...at one time Jesus the Christ was considered the closest non-scripture scripture in the church...sad to see it come to this.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Duncan]

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/essential-james-e-talmage-24/

 

Elder Talmage's journal entries about writing the book, I don't see anything about visions or coffee

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think these days they allow you to use whatever version you care to bring along.

In fact, I don't think they require you to bring it. I don't remember whether our boy had a copy when he left nearly two years ago. In fact I remember somebody saying don't worry about getting them beforehand, that you can probably get a copy left behind by some missionary who was there before you.

I'm guessing copies are available for purchase at the MTC..

On my mission, I carried Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith (hardbound, one was a copy my mother had) and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (pocket-size). But nobody ever asked me if I had them, and I don't recall them ever being referred to in zone conferences or study time and such.

The absolutely essential work for missionaries these days is Preach My Gospel. And the scriptures, of course.

No, i'm sure it's not required.  It wasn't when i served.

[Johnnie Cake]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/essential-james-e-talmage-24/

 

Elder Talmage's journal entries about writing the book, I don't see anything about visions or coffee

James P. Harris, The Essential James E. Talmage, 

Quote

He noted in his journal that it had been reported to the First Presidency that “the moderate use of tobacco would have a good effect on me.” They told him, “We give you this rather as an instruction than as counsel to take up smoking." Talmage subsequently found “that a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.”⁸⁷

So actually Talmage took up cigar smoking under the instruction of the First Presidency.  Boy have things changed

Edited June 30, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

James P. Harris, The Essential James E. Talmage,

is it mentioned in there?

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's great, Kevin. Thanks.

Isn't Jesus the Christ still very influential in establishing the Christology the church still maintains today?

For example, isn't it JtC that cements the idea of Jesus being the Jehovah of the Old Testament?

Jesus the Christ remains influential, deservedly so.  When I read it on my mission in England in 1974, the cultural vibe I felt that reading it was a cultural rite of passage, an initiation into diving into the deep end of the pool.  Since then I've learned that the pool is connected to seas, the seas to oceans, the oceans on a planet, and the planet a speck amid countless galaxies.  We all have to start somewhere, and if a lot of us start there, that becomes place of common vocabulary, understanding, and experience, which is good for community building.

And yes, it remains influential in that it importantly codified particular ways of thinking, and became a cultural touchstone, a book that a great many people read, and therefore, conditioned and guided a great deal of thought.

In one sense, yes, it was Jesus the Christ, and a near contemporary First Presidency Statement that codified the idea of Jesus being Jehovah of the Old Testament.  However, I now think that (contrary to a famous Sunstone essay by Thomas Alexander and essays by Boyd Kirtland), the notion of Jesus as Jehovah is inherent from the start of Mormonism, if not fully grasped by the diverse membership in the absence of a pedagogical book like Jesus the Christ.  On this see the essay by Bruening and Paulson:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

I've read a book length version of the essay and find it convincing and impressive.  I'm particularly impressed with final line of their footnote three. "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."  Rather then generalizing from those few anchoring proof texts, Bruening and Paulson make a comprehensive attempt to read the Book of Mormon comprehensively and contextually.  And that, I think, changes things.

And next time you sing "Praise to the Man" or "Jesus, Once of Humble Birth" pay close attention to the thought behind the words crossing your tongue.  "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus anointed that prophet and seer"  And "Once a meek and lowly lamb, now the Lord, the Great I AM."  Those hymns long predate the First Presidency statement and the publication of Jesus the Christ, and were not referenced by either Alexander or Kirtland.

For me though, while I young and splashing around in the pool of thought available then, I was initially impressed by Alexander and Kirtland in the 1980s.  Then in 1999 I read Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.  In my personal experience, and that of several other LDS scholars I know, the common reaction produced the same one word review. "WOW!"   She made the case far more comprehensively and powerfully than any LDS scholar, including Talmage, had ever done.  She drew on sources he did not have and used language skills he did not possess.  And yes, while he wrote physically in the temple, she got there spiritually, the Temple being her goal and key.  And she produced a body of work that connected to the Book of Mormon in ways that neither we nor Barker had imagined, but which strikes me as fulfilling the prophesy in 1 Nephi 13.

"All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered." Barker, Great Angel, 10, emphasis deleted. Also, “This distinction is important for at least two reasons; Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High.” Barker, Great Angel, 4.

The Book of Mormon keeps the same distinction and identity.  The source of confusion for Mormon readers is the combination of cultural conditioning from other faith backgrounds combined with the assumption that a Son cannot also be a Father and have a Father who is not the Son, an assumption I find contradicted everytime I shave and brush my teeth and see a son who is also a father and has a father who is not the son.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 30, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[Kenngo1969]

I love it when people make the argument (at the risk of oversimplifying, but, truly, boiling the argument down to its very essence), often, seemingly, so breathlessly as to border on hyperventilating, "[X] did supposedly-great thing [Y], but he also did thing [Z] which now is prohibited among modern observant Latter-day Saints.  So much for supposedly-great thing [Y], huh?"  

My response? Four words:

Big ...

... Fat ...

... Hairy ...

... Deal!!!!!

I'm pleased to strive to live the covenants of my day, and I will happily leave the judgment of how well anyone else lived the covenants of his day where it belongs: As a matter between him and God.  

But thanks fer playin'!