I read it when it first came off the press. In my original post on this thread I posted a comment someone else made on the book which parallels mine.
You won’t read it. It topples your black and white fundamentalist worldview.
Regards,
MG
You copy/pasted an Amazon review.
If you want people to take your recommendations seriously you’ve got to provide more evidence of your understanding of your own reference than a cheap trick like that.
Nope. I don’t. I read the book many years ago. I don’t own the book. I’m getting older and my memory doesn’t necessarily remember things in detail from years ago. This clip from reader comment on Amazon does encapsulate the general ‘take away’ I had from reading the book.
You haven’t read it, and you won’t. My guess is that you were not even aware of it (along with some others?) until I brought it up.
It runs against your fundamentalist/black and white worldview. You might actually be better off NOT reading it. It could topple and shatter what has been a ‘comfort zone’ that you have manufactured for yourself.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
If you want people to take your recommendations seriously you’ve got to provide more evidence of your understanding of your own reference than a cheap trick like that.
Nope. I don’t. I read the book many years ago. I don’t own the book. I’m getting older and my memory doesn’t necessarily remember things in detail from years ago. This clip from reader comment on Amazon does encapsulate the general ‘take away’ I had from reading the book.
So you’ve posted a link to a book you don’t have, haven’t read for many many years (if at all), and cannot remember any details of its contents, but a random Amazon review sounds like something you may or may not remember about the book, but you cannot be sure.
Oh. My. God.
Stop spamming threads with links to stuff you don’t have a grasp on.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
I’m not cluttering up threads. I am providing something of value. Charlie Harrell’s book being one of them.
Nope. I don’t. I read the book many years ago. I don’t own the book. I’m getting older and my memory doesn’t necessarily remember things in detail from years ago. This clip from reader comment on Amazon does encapsulate the general ‘take away’ I had from reading the book.
So you’ve posted a link to a book you don’t have, haven’t read for many many years (if at all), and cannot remember any details of its contents, but a random Amazon review sounds like something you may or may not remember about the book, but you cannot be sure.
Oh. My. God.
Stop spamming threads with links to stuff you don’t have a grasp on.
As I said, this poster encapsulated my ‘take away’ from reading the book many years ago.
And yes, I am sure that this was my take away from reading the book.
I know it goes against the grain in regards to your worldview. Critics often have a difficult time with the line upon line precept upon precept concept of revelation. And also the fact that humans are actually involved in the process.
So you’ve posted a link to a book you don’t have, haven’t read for many many years (if at all), and cannot remember any details of its contents, but a random Amazon review sounds like something you may or may not remember about the book, but you cannot be sure.
Oh. My. God.
Stop spamming threads with links to stuff you don’t have a grasp on.
As I said, this poster encapsulated my ‘take away’ from reading the book many years ago.
And yes, I am sure that this was my take away from reading the book.
Memory is unreliable. As you know. You cannot trust your own memory to be an accurate recalling of stuff from the past. That’s been demonstrated by many many studies. You’ve also said you’re struggling to recall stuff.
So no, you’re not sure. You just want to be because you liked the sound of the Amazon review and it saved you buying the book and reading it - something you were telling other people to do. So practice what you preach or stop spamming.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
As I said, this poster encapsulated my ‘take away’ from reading the book many years ago.
And yes, I am sure that this was my take away from reading the book.
Memory is unreliable. As you know. You cannot trust your own memory to be an accurate recalling of stuff from the past. That’s been demonstrated by many many studies. You’ve also said you’re struggling to recall stuff.
So no, you’re not sure. You just want to be because you liked the sound of the Amazon review and it saved you buying the book and reading it - something you were telling other people to do. So practice what you preach or stop spamming.
Memory is unreliable. As you know. You cannot trust your own memory to be an accurate recalling of stuff from the past. That’s been demonstrated by many many studies. You’ve also said you’re struggling to recall stuff.
So no, you’re not sure. You just want to be because you liked the sound of the Amazon review and it saved you buying the book and reading it - something you were telling other people to do. So practice what you preach or stop spamming.
I see that we are butting heads.
Regards,
MG
No we’re not. I’m simply calling out your nonsense. You’ve even said yourself your memory is unreliable.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
No we’re not. I’m simply calling out your nonsense. You’ve even said yourself your memory is unreliable.
As all memories are over time. I do remember what I took away from having read the book. The clip of another reader encapsulated that quite well.
We’re going in circles. Careful, we might lose huck (probably did a long time ago).
You apparently have a concern with the content of my feelings and conclusion after having read the book. You haven’t made one comment on the content. As I said before, you’re jumping up and down and side to side but you’re not addressing the content of what I’m saying.
It blows your mind. You can’t accept it.
The primary thesis of the book is presented in the opening chapter: theology is a divine-human enterprise. The author clearly demonstrates that the human portion of this enterprise is often underestimated. All of the basic doctrines of the LDS Church are presented and dissected in the chapters that follow showing the non-linear nature of LDS doctrinal development. The book is captivating as it unravels the common (though unofficial) Mormon belief in scriptural inerrancy and uniformity. The author's research is presented with the gentle melody of studious thought from the mind of an actively involved LDS church member. However, the results of his analysis topple many of the traditional LDS perceptions of doctrine.
Like I said, blows your mind. You are one of those “traditionalists”.
No we’re not. I’m simply calling out your nonsense. You’ve even said yourself your memory is unreliable.
As all memories are over time. I do remember what I took away from having read the book. The clip of another reader encapsulated that quite well.
We’re going in circles. Careful, we might lose huck (probably did a long time ago).
You apparently have a concern with the content of my feelings and conclusion after having read the book. You haven’t made one comment on the content. As I said before, you’re jumping up and down and side to side but you’re not addressing the content of what I’m saying.
It blows your mind. You can’t accept it.
The primary thesis of the book is presented in the opening chapter: theology is a divine-human enterprise. The author clearly demonstrates that the human portion of this enterprise is often underestimated. All of the basic doctrines of the LDS Church are presented and dissected in the chapters that follow showing the non-linear nature of LDS doctrinal development. The book is captivating as it unravels the common (though unofficial) Mormon belief in scriptural inerrancy and uniformity. The author's research is presented with the gentle melody of studious thought from the mind of an actively involved LDS church member. However, the results of his analysis topple many of the traditional LDS perceptions of doctrine.
Like I said, blows your mind. You are one of those “traditionalists”.
Regards,
MG
I read the book some time ago, this review seems to fit what I thought about it at that point…
This is exactly why people who aren't fluent in Hebrew and Greek should not be writing scholarly books on Hebrew and Greek texts. As a Latter-Day Saint who is currently in the process of applying to graduate school in a related field, I was intrigued at the concept of This is My Doctrine. Having finished it, I am disappointed in its execution for a multiplicity of reasons.
First, Harrell's heavy reliance on secondary literature was infuriating in almost every chapter. He took nuanced subjects such as the Adam-God doctrine and Asherah as Yhwh's consort, and stated an opinion as fact. Having spent a little time reading the dialog behind the latter subject, I knew that there is scant evidence for Harrell's argument, which was slightly infuriating. This kind of shoddy scholarship characterized the book. The work really would have benefited had Harrell hired an undergrad fact checker.
I also felt that Harrell often left his readers hanging. While the development of Mormon theology is a difficult subject to confront, conclusions are necessary. There weren't any. At the end of every chapter, let alone the book, I felt as though I was left with information on the development of doctrines, but I was left to sort it out for myself. Aren't conclusions the point of writing?
The book is also a highly sensationalist piece. While it had useful information that needs to be addressed, it also popularized material that should have been more carefully crafted into something that isn't laughable.
On a positive note, I personally feel that this is a topic that should be addressed. It's incredibly interesting to piece together the different stages of doctrine's evolution. This is particularly true when we're looking at how other 19th century denominations viewed things like Satan and the pre-existence. It gives the birth of the Mormon church a background, where I think we sometimes treat it as if it took place within a cultural vacuum. In the end, had the book been more carefully researched, it would have been a blessing to the scholarly community.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
