I agree with one of the top reviewers of this book (who, by the way, mentions you by name):
Lane
5.0 out of 5 stars Clears up a lot of messiness in Church doctrine
Reviewed in the United States on May 29, 2019
This is the best book out there if you want to understand the evolution of Mormon doctrine. About 35 years ago, it started to dawn on me that the Church declared absolute truth statements over time that have contradicted absolute truth statements made now. I lost my faith in relatively short order, the process having commenced during my five-year service as a bishop. To my way of thinking, the Church makes greater epistemological mistakes than I'm capable of, and seriously complicates a thinking person's life in the process. So, I figured, it's best to just grow a pair and strike out on your own. I always look back fondly, but my life has been greatly blessed by the mental clarity acquired by not having to bend the facts to the doctrine de jour, all the time. I'm that guy who hits church about half the time, sits in the back, and turns down Church callings, except for scouting and the ward Santa Claus (40 years running...). I keep my family together.
As I read the book, I kept wondering if I had had Harrell's book to frame the issue as he sees it, would I have kept the faith. I conclude that it would have made no difference, because, to my mind, my conscience has infinitely more value than the entirety of the Mormon Church. Institutions come and go, and while it's quite a struggle keeping above the fray, it's worth the effort in this life to seek clarity over the contingencies of one's particular circumstances. I had a wonderful life growing up in my little Mormon town and I loved my mission, but when it became apparent that the Church was not what I had thought it was, the mental gymnastics required to continue to conform to it ate away at my humanity. So, while this is not the case with everyone, I thought Brother Harrell's book was an uplifting exercise for me, and worthwhile for anyone interested in the evolution of Mormon theology. So, thanks for this work of immense erudition.
And from another review:
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.
This book was a watershed/landmark production of historical/theological significance in Mormon thought. I found it quite impactful and thought provoking years ago when I read it near the time it was published.
It’s a book that might have got lost in the shuffle. There may be some here who have never heard of it or read it.
I agree with one of the top reviewers of this book (who, by the way, mentions you by name):
And from another review:
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.
This book was a watershed/landmark production of historical/theological significance in Mormon thought. I found it quite impactful and thought provoking years ago when I read it near the time it was published.
It’s a book that might have got lost in the shuffle. There may be some here who have never heard of it or read it.
Regards,
MG
And of course like everything about Mormonism out there, it’s not really backed by the LDS Church. There really are no immutable doctrines in the Church. It’s all a mishmash of ever-changing theology that not even official channels can agree on—so the GAs leave it up to the hobbyists like you, Daniel, and the Givens to defend.
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.
This question causes me to think that you think that all the thinking has been done or was done…period. No questions asked. No opportunity for further light and knowledge.
Sheesh, it took the early brethren quite a while to come together and work out the kinks on a number of things.
This question causes me to think that you think that all the thinking has been done or was done…period. No questions asked. No opportunity for further light and knowledge.
Sheesh, it took the early brethren quite a while to come together and work out the kinks on a number of things.
That causes a problem for you. I get it.
Regards,
MG
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
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.
This book was a watershed/landmark production of historical/theological significance in Mormon thought. I found it quite impactful and thought provoking years ago when I read it near the time it was published.
It’s a book that might have got lost in the shuffle. There may be some here who have never heard of it or read it.
Regards,
MG
And of course like everything about Mormonism out there, it’s not really backed by the LDS Church. There really are no immutable doctrines in the Church. It’s all a mishmash of ever-changing theology that not even official channels can agree on—so the GAs leave it up to the hobbyists like you, Daniel, and the Givens to defend.
For a number of years now the theology has been pretty much set. Could there be additional change? Possibly.
But Jesus will be the Christ. God will still be our Father. There will be a church organization with doctrines and ordinances. Repentance and Faith will still be a thing. There will be a judgement. There will be a community of believers/saints. Etc.
Some things don’t/won’t change.
Unfortunately, in my mind anyway, when there are changes in policy/practice nowadays that seems to be a hurdle too high to jump for those that are not settled with the established doctrine.
This question causes me to think that you think that all the thinking has been done or was done…period. No questions asked. No opportunity for further light and knowledge.
Sheesh, it took the early brethren quite a while to come together and work out the kinks on a number of things.
That causes a problem for you. I get it.
Regards,
MG
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
I think it is published by Signature Books. I don’t know what the relationship is between that publisher and the church.
It would be interesting to know if any of the Signature Books publications exist in the home library of any of the General Authorities. Signature has published some good stuff over the years.
You haven't answered the question I asked. Is your reference a Church-approved source? Yes, or No?
I think it is published by Signature Books. I don’t know what the relationship is between that publisher and the church.
It would be interesting to know if any of the Signature Books publications exist in the home library of any of the General Authorities. Signature has published some good stuff over the years.
Have you actually read Charlie Harrell’s book?
If so, what was your response?
Regards,
MG
That’s a very long way of saying No. Church Leaders have asked you to avoid using non Church approved sources, why aren’t you listening to them?
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.
If you have questions about official Church teachings, look first at what current Church leaders have and have not said. This will help you evaluate other, earlier statements.
This is Dieter confirming that as soon as Prophets and Apostles are dead, their successors can, and will, and have, contradicted their inspired comments. Malleable.
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.
... but when it became apparent that the Church was not what I had thought it was, the mental gymnastics required to continue to conform to it ate away at my humanity.
