Is Talmage's Jesus the Christ outdated?

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

What is the relevance of Talmadge's cigar smoking to this thread?

It was around 1930 that Mormons were to obey the WOW to be temple worthy. Talmadge was before that time.  

Which is why cinepro's post on presentism was enjoyable (a proposed April date for the census//nativity  due to our modern 4/15 taxation deadline, and a proposed December nativity because even today hotels near Bethlehem are usually booked then.)

In direct answer to you, there's clearly no cause to judge Talmage by 2012 standards.  And, even ignoring presentism (and all of the other minutiae), if one somehow needed to judge, one could simply judge him by his fruits. How many of us are better people for having had the privilege to engage with Talmage's writings?

Edited June 30, 2017 by hagoth7

[MiserereNobis]

For those who are interested, here might be the Catholic equivalent:

https://www.ignatius.com/Products/JNSET-X/jesus-of-nazareth-3-volume-set.aspx

It's a 3 volume set called Jesus of Nazareth written by the previous pope, Pope Benedict XVI.

[Bob Crockett]

Jesus the Christ was one of the few scholarly books actually endorsed by the First Presidency.  It has been authorized reading for missionaries.   To a great extent, it stands on its own in terms of revelatory exposition of LDS doctrine.  The fact that his footnotes relied solely upon the reference works of the day do not mean necessarily that the work is out of date.  Is, for instance, the Book of Abraham out of date merely because many in the church do not believe the scrolls were penned by Abraham's own hand? 

Sometimes liberal scholars in the Church become confused between secular scholarship and revelatory writing.  They are not the same.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Jesus the Christ was one of the few scholarly books actually endorsed by the First Presidency.  It has been authorized reading for missionaries.   To a great extent, it stands on its own in terms of revelatory exposition of LDS doctrine.  The fact that his footnotes relied solely upon the reference works of the day do not mean necessarily that the work is out of date.  Is, for instance, the Book of Abraham out of date merely because many in the church do not believe the scrolls were penned by Abraham's own hand? 

Sometimes liberal scholars in the Church become confused between secular scholarship and revelatory writing.  They are not the same.

Is there a reference we could read for where the church or Talmage himself claims that the book was revelatory?  

[Bob Crockett]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a reference we could read for where the church or Talmage himself claims that the book was revelatory?  

To some extent, the answer is self-evident as the work is maintained on lds.org.  https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng.   Talmage's introduction says that his work is based upon modern and ancient scripture.  "The purpose of the present treatise is that of considering the life and mission of Jesus as the Christ. In this undertaking we are to be guided by the light of both ancient and modern scriptures; and, thus led, we shall discover, even in the early stages of our course, that the word of God as revealed in latter days is effective in illuming and making plain the Holy Writ of ancient times, and this, in many matters of the profoundest import."

The church's website (https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-classic-jesus-the-christ-published-100-years-ago?lang=eng) states that the book is a "doctrinal work" written "in the temple" and an instructional manual used in the church.   The website article also says:  "Because of the sacred setting, and perhaps because of the direct commission from the First Presidency, some have tended to assume incorrectly that Elder Talmage wrote the book under direct revelation. Though he wrote of feeling the spirit of the temple, it seems it was mainly for him a place of refuge from other pressures, freeing him to devote his full attention to the work, a scholarly treatise on the ministry of the Lord, informed by latter-day scripture and doctrine."

When I said "revelatory," I should have said that it was supposed to be didacticism and hortatory teachings intended to state the Church's position based upon Church revelations, rather than itself being word-breathed words from God.   I don't consider "The Strength of Youth" pamphlet to be revelation, but I consider it to be based upon the revelations of God as understood by the Church.

Some may view my thinking on this and other subjects, when I routinely point to church manuals, as naive or uninformed, and perhaps my thinking about the Church should be guided by Margaret Barker or New Testament scholars outside of the Church, as they have the most up-to-date scholarship.  Whereas I have no doubt that Elder Talmage's work, from a secular standpoint of New Testament scholarship, lacks the latest and greatest views on Christ by secular scholars, my observations have long been about the way the Church is structured.  A sociologist studying the Church would rightly say that notwithstanding Jesus the Christ's reference to scholarly works which are now out of date, the Church yet holds up Jesus the Christ as authoritative and persuasive for other reasons. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[David Waltz]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:57 PM, cinepro said:

The problem is that you don't want any LDS to read such an old book and then have it regularly contradicted by all the cutting-edge New Testament scholarship that they're hearing in Church.

Interesting..."cutting-edge New Testament scholarship" includes the denial of the: virgin birth of Jesus; divinity of Jesus; bodily resurrection of Jesus; resurrection of Lazarus. They also promote the notion that virtually none of the words from the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of John are authentic; but rather, were fabrications by a group of late-first century folk termed the "Johannine Community".

Such "scholarship" totally 'guts' the Jesus of the NT and the Book of Mormon, transforming Him into a mythological figure.

 

Grace and peace,

David

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

To some extent, the answer is self-evident as the work is maintained on lds.org.  https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng.   Talmage's introduction says that his work is based upon modern and ancient scripture.  "The purpose of the present treatise is that of considering the life and mission of Jesus as the Christ. In this undertaking we are to be guided by the light of both ancient and modern scriptures; and, thus led, we shall discover, even in the early stages of our course, that the word of God as revealed in latter days is effective in illuming and making plain the Holy Writ of ancient times, and this, in many matters of the profoundest import."

The church's website (https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-classic-jesus-the-christ-published-100-years-ago?lang=eng) states that the book is a "doctrinal work" written "in the temple" and an instructional manual used in the church.   The website article also says:  "Because of the sacred setting, and perhaps because of the direct commission from the First Presidency, some have tended to assume incorrectly that Elder Talmage wrote the book under direct revelation. Though he wrote of feeling the spirit of the temple, it seems it was mainly for him a place of refuge from other pressures, freeing him to devote his full attention to the work, a scholarly treatise on the ministry of the Lord, informed by latter-day scripture and doctrine."

When I said "revelatory," I should have said that it was supposed to be didacticism and hortatory teachings intended to state the Church's position based upon Church revelations, rather than itself being word-breathed words from God.   I don't consider "The Strength of Youth" pamphlet to be revelation, but I consider it to be based upon the revelations of God as understood by the Church.

Some may view my thinking on this and other subjects, when I routinely point to church manuals, as naive or uninformed, and perhaps my thinking about the Church should be guided by Margaret Barker or New Testament scholars outside of the Church, as they have the most up-to-date scholarship.  Whereas I have no doubt that Elder Talmage's work, from a secular standpoint of New Testament scholarship, lacks the latest and greatest views on Christ by secular scholars, my observations have long been about the way the Church is structured.  A sociologist studying the Church would rightly say that notwithstanding Jesus the Christ's reference to scholarly works which are now out of date, the Church yet holds up Jesus the Christ as authoritative and persuasive for other reasons. 

The weakest reference is the one concerning it being on LDS.org.  There are many things on lds.org that explicitly aren't revelation or revelatory (such as the bible dictionary, Gospel Study guides, etc.).

And while scripture is revelatory, we shouldn't assume that interpretations and writings about scripture are as well.  There are lots of books based on scripture and we would consider few if any of them revelatory.

Also, lesson manuals are considered to be doctrinal works but aren't considered to be revelatory, right?

And finally, that the church specifically says that we shouldn't consider it revelatory seems like the biggest reason not to put it into the revelatory category.  I do agree that the church views it as very important and significant still and I encourage everyone that I can to read it because it is an amazing book.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The weakest reference is the one concerning it being on LDS.org.  There are many things on lds.org that explicitly aren't revelation or revelatory (such as the bible dictionary, Gospel Study guides, etc.).

And while scripture is revelatory, we shouldn't assume that interpretations and writings about scripture are as well.  There are lots of books based on scripture and we would consider few if any of them revelatory.

Also, lesson manuals are considered to be doctrinal works but aren't considered to be revelatory, right?

 

Not to mention that the piece on lds.org was written by a hack named Scott Lloyd!

This is actually a reposting of the Church News piece I linked to earlier on this thread. 

Much of our Church News content these days is posted on lds.org and thus appears on two websites: lds.org and deseretnews.com (ldschurchnews.com). 

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The weakest reference is the one concerning it being on LDS.org.  There are many things on lds.org that explicitly aren't revelation or revelatory (such as the bible dictionary, Gospel Study guides, etc.).

And while scripture is revelatory, we shouldn't assume that interpretations and writings about scripture are as well.  There are lots of books based on scripture and we would consider few if any of them revelatory.

Also, lesson manuals are considered to be doctrinal works but aren't considered to be revelatory, right?

And finally, that the church specifically says that we shouldn't consider it revelatory seems like the biggest reason not to put it into the revelatory category.  I do agree that the church views it as very important and significant still and I encourage everyone that I can to read it because it is an amazing book.

Well it is a matter of semantics.  I think as a practical matter, if the work is still on lds.org and is held out as an instructional manual, it has more meaning as to its contents than the research the book cites.   

This discussion hearkens back to my belief in the Sorenson model.  As I have pointed out several times, when the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in the 1920s it held a general conference dedicated to the purchase.  Many speakers, including members of the First Presidency, stood and described the history of the site, from the Jaredites to the present.  Now, this kind of information to me is revelatory.  When folks on this board cite science and research by Sorenson to rebuke those statements, I can only say that it is hard to refute what the Brethren say is the gospel.  Even with science and research.  The Church's position is what it is. Similarly, when Jesus the Christ is held out the way it is held out now, it takes on a meaning greater than a scholarly work.  It explicates the Church's position on the life of Christ -- whether or not Christ ever existed.  

I say this only as an observer as to the structure of the Church and its theology.  I really take no position one way or the other as to my particular beliefs in the book. A pronouncement which is still pronounced means that the book is not out of date, at least for now.  That Margaret Baker wouldn't endorse the book is meaningless.  Our Church is not the Church of Margaret Barker.

It really isn't an argument to say the Church doesn't really endorse Jesus the Christ as modern theology.  

Edited July 1, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

Sadly the Christ =OT Jehovah theory he popularized seems to have stuck.

[PeterPear]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well it is a matter of semantics.  I think as a practical matter, if the work is still on lds.org and is held out as an instructional manual, it has more meaning as to its contents than the research that the book cites.   

This discussion hearkens back to my belief on the Sorenson model.  As I have pointed out several times, when the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in the 1920s it held a general conference dedicated to the purchase.  Many speakers, including members of the First Presidency, stood and described the history of the site, from the Jaredites to the present.  Now, this kind of information to me is revelatory.  When folks on this board cite science and research by Sorenson to rebuke those statements, I can only say that it is hard to refute what the Brethren say is the gospel.  Similarly, when Jesus the Christ is held out the way it is held out now, it takes on a meaning greater than a scholarly work.

I say this only as an observer as to the structure of the Church and its theology.  I really take no position one way or the other as to my particular beliefs in the book. But all too often we reject or dismiss a teaching of the Church by arguing that the Church doesn't really believe it, when in fact the teaching is in current manuals, cited by the Brethren, and on the website.

It really isn't an argument to say the Church doesn't really endorse Jesus the Christ as modern theology.  

I agree with Bob Crockett. Too many here cite "scholars" and "science" to demote and criticize the teachings of the Apostles, even if you consider yourself faithful and not a Mormon Atheist,  nor one who refuses to eat johnnie cakes.

"Is it outdated?" "It's on LDS.org'" was a reply. "That doesn't mean anything." Whatever. If you already have your answer, why ask? Or are you expecting the Church to create a website just for you containing only revelatory material?

But what should a reader of this site expect? The LDS "Scholars" here are willing to declare the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know the correct geography of the Book of Mormon, which Bob Crockett alluded to. And the inhabitants of the Jaredite and the Nephites Nations for thousands of years were idiots because they couldn't figure out true north in a narrow neck of land in Mesoamerica which runs east-west.

From the Presidents and Apostles of the Church to the scriptures themselves, all are idiots, except the Scholars who declare they are. "They're outdated!"

mormon dialogue. This site is a joke.

Edited July 1, 2017 by PeterPear

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sadly the Christ =OT Jehovah theory he popularized seems to have stuck.

I was under the impression that this was LDS doctrine. You seem to disagree. Do you mind elaborating?

ETA: maybe we should start a new thread if the topic derails

Edited July 1, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Five Solas]

On 6/30/2017 at 1:46 PM, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2000/up-in-smoke-a-response-to-the-tanners-criticism-of-the-word-of-wisdom

"The early LDS approach to tobacco was similar to that of their attitude to alcohol: it was avoided, but it was also believed–based on contemporary medical advice–to offer medicinal aid for things such as toothaches (as used by Brigham Young123), and relief of fatigue, stress, and headaches. James Talmage was counseled by the First Presidency “‘to try the effect of moderate smoking'” for his nervous disorder. Talmage wrote in his journal that “‘a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.'”124"

I didn't have my first cigar until after I became a Christian, at a church sponsored men's retreat (except they called it an "advance" because men don't "retreat"--a bit silly, I know).  But I'll never forget that evening, we were all standing around a bonfire and someone opened a box and started passing them out (a very generous individual, if you're acquainted with the price of these things). 

Talmage may not have got much right, but he sure nailed this--a good cigar really is a "marvelous"' thing.  I'd enjoy them more often--but my wife hates the smell on me afterwords.  Sometimes sacrifices must be made...

;0)

--Erik

__________________________

Time takes a cigarette
Puts it in your mouth
You pull on your finger
Then another finger
Then your cigarette

--David Bowie, 1972

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sadly the Christ =OT Jehovah theory he popularized seems to have stuck.

It's not a theory. It's doctrine. I clearly remember teaching it on my mission, as it was part of the missionary lessons as they were scripted back then. And it was enunciated by the First Presidency in "The Father and Son: a Doctrinal Exposition."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was under the impression that this was LDS doctrine. You seem to disagree. Do you mind elaborating?

ETA: maybe we should start a new thread if the topic derails

It is LDS doctrine. Do not be misled. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, David Waltz said:

Interesting..."cutting-edge New Testament scholarship" includes the denial of the: virgin birth of Jesus; divinity of Jesus; bodily resurrection of Jesus; resurrection of Lazarus. They also promote the notion that virtually none of the words from the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of John are authentic; but rather, were fabrications by a group of late-first century folk termed the "Johannine Community".

Such "scholarship" totally 'guts' the Jesus of the NT and the Book of Mormon, transforming Him into a mythological figure.

 

Grace and peace,

David

 

David!  Long time no "Cyber-see"!  You grace us with your estimable presence too seldom.  Nice to Cyber-see you.  

[JLHPROF]

On July 1, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It is LDS doctrine. Do not be misled. 

Yes, it is.  But it wasn't until the Talmage time period. The misleading is that it always has been and there is a revelation that backs that interpretation up.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, it is.  But it wasn't until the Talmage time period. The misleading is that it always has been and there is a revelation that backs that interpretation up.

Why is that sad if he is pointing out something that has always been revelation?

I believe there are many revelations right under the noses of Christians, they just don't recognize as such because they were taught by men.

[RevTestament]

On 7/1/2017 at 3:21 PM, PeterPear said:

I agree with Bob Crockett. Too many here cite "scholars" and "science" to demote and criticize the teachings of the Apostles, even if you consider yourself faithful and not a Mormon Atheist,  nor one who refuses to eat johnnie cakes.

"Is it outdated?" "It's on LDS.org'" was a reply. "That doesn't mean anything." Whatever. If you already have your answer, why ask? Or are you expecting the Church to create a website just for you containing only revelatory material?

But what should a reader of this site expect? The LDS "Scholars" here are willing to declare the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know the correct geography of the Book of Mormon, which Bob Crockett alluded to. And the inhabitants of the Jaredite and the Nephites Nations for thousands of years were idiots because they couldn't figure out true north in a narrow neck of land in Mesoamerica which runs east-west.

From the Presidents and Apostles of the Church to the scriptures themselves, all are idiots, except the Scholars who declare they are. "They're outdated!"

mormon dialogue. This site is a joke.

My PP, you are in one of your unusually good moods today...  

[cinepro]

I'm guessing this documentary is 100% cigar-free...

James E. Talmage: The Story Behind Jesus the Christ

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by cinepro

[Duncan]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm guessing this documentary is 100% cigar-free...

James E. Talmage: The Story Behind Jesus the Christ

 

I own the DVD of this, it's 30 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was outraged, I wanted more!!! I think he was into cigars but I can't find evidence he smoked them whilst writing JTC. I would watch it now but I am already watching Short Circuit 2

Edited July 16, 2017 by Duncan

[hagoth7]

On 7/1/2017 at 3:21 PM, PeterPear said:

...he LDS "Scholars" here are willing to declare the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know the correct geography of the Book of Mormon ...From the Presidents and Apostles of the Church to the scriptures themselves, all are idiots, except the Scholars who declare they are. "They're outdated!"

mormon dialogue. This site is a joke.

Umm. I'll gladly stand alongside you and go toe to toe with any scholar who claims the brethren don't know what they're talking about.

(But I have yet to find any such scholar who actually claims that.)

What I do hear some say, is that knowledge is advancing. Which is true.

And that even leadership doesn't always know everything. Which is true.

But what the Brethren tell us are the things we need to know from them today. They are as informed from new discoveries in American archaeology, and of world advances in science and technology and agriculture as they are on other matters. But they're not expected to be the ones *doing* the scientific/tehcnological discoveries. If we don't need to criticize the brethren for not inventing TV for General Conference, but allow Farnsworth to focus on that while the Brethren focused on greater things...we're all better for it...that each was allowed to contribute in their own way...for the greater good...and it doesn't diminish the Brethren one iota that Farnsworth did what he did. 

Present truth is merely present trruth. It can and should advance. And that it does tso is not *at all* throwing the brethren under the bus. They grow in stature and wisdom, gradually, just as Jesus of Nazareth did. Rather then diminish them as they and we advance in knowledge/wisdom. it does all of us a disservice to prop up a brittle model of leadership that says one's views and teachings somehow cannot improve and advance over time.

That said, I believe Joseph knew much more than he let on. But I happily allow those who share the pew to disagree. AoF: "...according to the dictates *of their own* conscience...let them..."   

On 7/1/2017 at 3:21 PM, PeterPear said:

mormon dialogue. This site is a joke.

It isn't a joke.

You're simpy, and unfortunately, making a caricature of the Mesoamerican model, and a strawman out of some of the statements Mesoamerican advocates have made.

Please choose not to be offended over people asserting an opinion different than yours. "In the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity."

Edited July 17, 2017 by hagoth7

[Duncan]

I came across this story and thought of this thread-it's tangentially related and I was wondering if anyone else had heard this-This lady found an old copy of JTC and it had this name J. Eddy Martin, who was a real person

I found this story on the back cover of an old copy of Jesus the Christ. J. Eddy Martin April 20,1973 "I went to the Salt Lake temple to do initiatory ordinances and stayed for the 8 AM endowment session. This was such a large session it was divided into A and B sections. I was in the A and Sarah in the B. There were 45 marriages so I had to wait in the outer lobby for Sarah for 2 hours. As I waited I heard an elderly man tell his young companion, an elder, this story. “When I was a young man I was appointed leader of my elder’s quorum. In those days, the presidencies of the Elder’s Quorums in the salt lake area were invited to meet each week in the Elder’s Room in the temple. Usually an apostle was in charge of the meeting. One day, elder James E. Talmage was presiding. After opening exercises, he invited us into a corridor to hear his testimony. He stood in front of a door and said, “This is the room where I wrote my book, ‘Jesus the Christ.’ One day I became so discouraged that I brought my suitcase and put all my notes and personal items in it, closed it, and started out the door. I felt a hand on my shoulder, and turning, I saw a man. He asked, “What are you doing?” “I’m frustrated,” replied Elder Talmage, “and I’ve made so many errors I am taking my notes home to destroy them.” “No,” replied the personage, “there are errors in the Bible and other books, but this is the most perfect book any man has ever written about me. You must finish it.”

[Calm]

You could write the likely grandson and see if he has heard of it:

http://martinfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/2009/06/summary-of-joseph-eddy-martin-b-1908.html

It sounds like the same sort of folklore surrounding the picture of Christ in the red robe.  Was Talmage the type to brag?

Apparently Talmage corresponded with Martin, you could ask the Church History Library to digitized the letters for you:

https://eadview.lds.org/resource/public/collection/pdf/4014/

Edited August 17, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Where did you come across it, I can't find it online.