I just finished reading "This Is My Doctrine" by Charles R. Harrell, a professor at BYU, published 2011 by Greg Kofford Books.

It is a genuine, unbiased and thorough history of the development of almost all of the fundamental doctrines of Mormonism, tracing them from their beginnings in the Old Testament, through early Mormon teachings, and down to the present day.

If you thought before that Mormon doctrine is a rambling shambles, this book will confirm it for you, and show you why. The author shows how doctrines shifted, developed, disappeared, and grew. He shows how much doctrine (both Christian and Mormon) is not at all justified by its supposed scriptural sources, and shows how theologians of all kinds have twisted scripture to make it fit their own current notions.

Harrell never says what Mormon doctrine actually IS (the way McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith or Talmage did), but only cites what the "authorities" have said it is.

I recommend this book highly. I know of no other book like it (Jim Whitefield's books come close).

Anybody want to make bets about how long Harrell will last at BYU?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 06:40PM by RPackham.

Interesting, thx for the share.

...rather than have your recommendation, I wouldn't have gone for it. The following would have been a red light for me:

>This does not mean that ancient and modern prophetic teachings are not inspired—only that they should not be understood as the final and inalterable word of God.

Harrell, Charles R. (2011-08-02). "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology (Part 1) (Kindle Locations 57-58). Greg Kofford Books. Kindle Edition.<

Eh, the excuses begin. But I'll trust you, Richard, that his faithful Mormon fence sitting is worth suffering for the greater meat to be found.

Stray Mutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >This does not mean that ancient and modern
> prophetic teachings are not inspired—only that
> they should not be understood as the final and
> inalterable word of God.

So can we also say that the CURRENT teachings are not the final unalterable word of God? That they are just the best guess that fallible, human leaders have come up with?

Thanks Richard.

I can't wait to get my hands on this one.

I love rigorous detailed analysis of religion--it's the best way to see the cracks in the foundation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 07:54PM by archytas.

Charles Harrell quote in response to a comment about his book.

"My target audience is primarily non academics who have gone through CES and are entrenched in traditional LDS doctrinal paradigms, or have struggled with cognitive dissonance.

hmmm

The author is trying to avoid church discipline, I think. He tosses in a few sops to the faithful, but overall the facts he presents demolish any notion that "inspired" means anything more than simply "written or pronounced by somebody who thinks he's a prophet."

Example: he details how almost all of Joseph Smith's "innovative" doctrinal ideas were actually commonly held by other clergymen and theologians of Smith's time. He cites the sources. He gives example after example of how the wording and phrases of the Book of Mormon were common in the religious literature of Smith's time, but not before.

His rather lame conclusion (to save his neck, and which does not detract from the wealth of information in the book): The value of Mormon doctrine is that "it works!" My only objections to that (and they are the ONLY objections I have of the entire book) are: 1) what does "it works" really mean? 2) why does it work for some, but not for others? 3) what about what is true? 4) don't other doctrinal systems "work" for their faithful (Catholicism, Islam, Bahai, Wicca)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 07:59PM by RPackham.

I've noticed this over the years. The scholars present data that totally contradicts the claims of the Church then they conclude with a final spin on how this really is not harmful to the faith. Had they not put this final spin on it their work would be considered "anti-Mormon."

It sounds like his book is aimed at the audience he claims, while trying to open some eyes and keep his butt out of the sling. I think this will be an interesting read.

...things like, "the mediation of scripture through finite and fallible humans necessarily presents a limited and imperfect view of ultimate reality," it just make me wonder what sort of inept deity Elohim is supposed to be. His assigned spokesmen write the stuff down but he can't go back to them before it's published and say, "Um, no, that's not quite right. Get ready to take dictation." Or it makes me think, if the scriptures and prophetic pronouncements are muddied by human error, cultural influences, preconceptions and just plain BS, then why are we held accountable for it?

Of course, when one stops trying to fit God into the creation of scripture and doctrine, and accepts that it's ALL just manmade, then the problems go away.

If you order from the publisher through Mormon Stories, you get a substantial discount.

More information, please, on how to do this.

I might like to buy this book for some relatives and friends.

Here's the link: http://mormonstories.org/?p=2414

I wonder what his conclusion will be?

Just read your comments, Richard.

Just ordered the book off Amazon.

Thanks.

Time to talk with the Bishop and BYU higher-ups.

The old six discussions basically asked:

"Brother Brown, if you had a question about religion would you go to an educated person, or to a prophet of God?"

"A prophet."

"Why?"

"Because a prophet's answer would come straight form God."

-------------------------------------------------------------

The idea (ideal) behind that answer has always been Mormonism's greatest strength. It is also Mormonism's greatest vulnerability!

Claims are easy. Delivering on those claims is something else entirely. If God is perfect, God's revealed word must also be perfect; That's an impossibly high standard.

The fact is that Mormonism's "God" has been all over the map, even to the point of God contradicting Himself -- that's a deal breaker. The roots of the church's tree are clearly rotten, nothing good can come from it now.

Erase brother Brown's answer, and you erase the LDS church's authority, and the church with it.

+1

On the one hand the Church says "we are inspired prophets. When the bishop calls you to some position that is an inspired calling direct from God."

However when you point out all the contradictions they say "well inspiration is filtered through fallible men . . . yadda yadda."

There's two things I like about the Church: its face



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 10:24PM by baura.

Here is his podcast interview with John Dehlin

http://www.mormonstories.org/?p=2414

Just got the book off Amazon.

Thanks. It looks oh sooo good. I shouldn't have spent the money, but this one looks like just what I've been looking for for a long time - all of the theological underpinnings in one book.