Book Review "This is My Doctrine" Part 2

[Apologeticsislying]

Reviewing Charles Harrell “This is My Doctrine” PART 2
By Kerry A. Shirts (The Backyard Professor)

Chapter 1 in Harrell’s book attempts to get us off on the right foot with the unique circumstance of Mormonism’s doctrine of prophets living today receiving revelation from God and writing it down into new scripture separate from the Bible. This poses interesting potentials and possibilities as well as interesting difficulties for the world, as well as Mormonism itself.

Mormons derive their theology for the most part from scriptures, and if those aren’t clear they turn to the General Authorities, and perhaps some official works of Mormonism, little though there be in a scholarly manner. What Harrell tries to do here in chapter 1 is show the combined efforts of the Divine with the human in order to arrive at truth. It makes for quite difficult times because of our need, as humans, for consistency, and the need for good reasoning and consistency within the field of space-time. Here, we are in the field of duality, opposites that give contrast, there is no other reality for us right now as we are physical. The law of non-contradiction has to hold or we end up with just nonsense. For instance, we cannot physically with our bodies, at the exact same time, be in both Chicago and Los Angeles. That is impossible and hence nonsense if the claim is made in seriousness. Unfortunately, combining human with Divine activity contributes to the nonsense instead of clarifying and making things more consistent. It muddies up the picture, as we shall see.

Since Joseph Smith didn’t like creeds, he felt them too constricting, Mormonism has not had creeds. As far as systematic theology, it doesn’t have that either, because that, according to Joseph Smith “prevents one from advancing in truth and understanding.” (p.1) The idea is “to let the revelations speak for themselves on doctrinal matters while continuing to remaining open to further light and knowledge from the Lord.”(p.1) The issue becomes sticky because prophets in Mormonism now say we have to accept their claims without criticizing them even if it is an accurate criticism. And if we don’t submit (submission was Neal A. Maxwell’s favorite word in his subtly devious linguistic and verbal attempts to convince all to simply follow and accept what they are told is true) excommunication looms on the horizon, so there is an intimidation and coercion factor involved that apparently wasn’t so in Joseph’s day. (I’m talking about believing doctrine here in this context, not polygamy and Smith’s coercion against girls and married women to marry him).

“LDS leaders seek to ensure that the doctrines taught in the Church are orthodox and consistent…”(p.1) and the way they have done this is to exclude what they haven’t liked, even if it was former revelation to a former prophet from God Himself, or just change the old view and say it was God’s revelation that called for the change! It appears that God apparently can’t get it right the first time. Not only do we have to wonder if the first revelation was right, but is the revelation declaring the first revelation a mistake – i. e. this new corrective revelation right to change the old formerly right revelation which is now wrong so we can finally get to what is right?! Is there any assurance in this? And will this new “right” view still be changed by another revelation later which is right while what today is thought right is actually wrong?! So… nothing appears to actually be right… ever… even when given by God! That’s uh… sticky. What’s the point to it then? Prophets, the prophets self-certifyingly say, are for guidance, enlightenment, and giving truth to the whole world. But what they don’t say is it is only tentative since later revelations will overthrow the earlier ones, even on requirements to become deified in the celestial kingdom, so this isn’t trivial things being done away with! In this regard, why are so many of them anti-scientific? Because that’s beautiful science, changing as new evidence comes in! Unfortunately it’s horrible religion. I also cannot grasp why Mormonism imagines being orthodox is even a good way to attempt to be. There has not been one orthodox view in all of history that has not been refuted, because orthodoxy simply cannot be true. It is an assumption of the absolute, and there is no absolute in our field of space-time. Orthodox is a mere label and the philosophy of it is useless. It’s time Mormon leaders wake up and smell the coffee on that one, among others.

But wait… how can tentative religion be horrible, unless of course, the prophets have redefined things relative into absolute truths, which are not really absolute truths, in order to simply control people’s thoughts? Have you ever heard a prophet thunder mighty revelations down from the celestial mountains of Elohim saying Thus Saith the Lord, but, only for the moment, later on we’ll be changing this just as we change channels on a television? The impression, unfortunately is, that when the leaders speak the thinking has been done, there is no discussion, you have THE truth. And that is what is false. And you can’t say that (especially to them!), or you will get into ecclesiastical trouble for saying the truth about their falsehood which they think gives absolute truth. I told you it was tricky! So anyway, lets move on, we shall be able to return to this later.

The other rather odd thing about this is, “the Church has never published an ‘official’ exposition of Mormonism’s doctrine.”(p.1) So there is not going to be any ever final doctrine which rests on truth, because the doctrines change, being made by fallible men, even when revealed from an infallible God! There is no absolute final doctrinal truth in Mormonism, it appears to be all relative, according to time and culture, and current accepted morals. God’s truths and laws and morals are only for time and contingent. If there is something absolute about God, it won’t be able to be made known to humans who can then live according to that absolute law(s), because all things change through time, including former “celestial laws” revealed from God Almighty, which today are not practiced, and not sustained, such as polygamy of Joseph Smith’s revelations, and racist issues.

From Bruce R. McConkie’s point of view it was essential to salvation to have correct views on evolution, and individual progression between Kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom after the resurrection, and whether God was still progressing in knowledge or not. And he made it his own Gospel hobby horse to make sure and battle others into submitting to his doctrinaire views in all manner of things which he knew, thanks to revelation, which, of course, in his own eyes, meant solid absolute truth.(1) (if you think I am exaggerating McConkie’s arrogant personal righteousness and absolute perfect correctness in things doctrinal, see here: https://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-reb ... ne-england) But what is most interesting is, while McConkie adamantly declared as diamond truth crystalizing from yonder celestial regions on high that God knew everything, period. Full stop. The discussion ended here; Eugene England, another faithful Mormon who also received inspiration claimed God was still learning new information! And no one, whether they have received revelation from God or not, or from using multiple scriptural passages in all four of the LDS Standard Works, actually knows the truth! Revealed or not, usage of scripture and commentary of LDS leaders, we are still ignorant of this. One can interweave the various doctrines of scriptures in such a contextual way as to demonstrate there is no way God doesn’t know everything. And one can do the opposite. Neither the fallible scriptures, nor revelation from God give us final knowledge, but all we are left with is more or less, guessing, and all sides claiming only they, and not their opponents, are using the proper contextualization! So you can’t get it from revelation from God, you can’t get it from leaders, you can’t get it from scholars, you can’t get it from scriptures, you can’t get it from contextualization. And yet, as it is set up, it is THE most important thing to have faith in ***the right kind of God*** in order to be saved and exalted, but no one knows what or who the right kind of God is! Now… call me naïve, but that appears to me to be problematic. The point is, the revelations on doctrine simply do nothing of the sort as “speaking for themselves on doctrinal matters” in obvious conclusion any dough head can arrive at with one reading. Neither can any scholars (let alone group of them) arrive at a valid final conclusion based on a lifetime of researching. Neither can a prophet (or any group of them) receiving 255+ revelations. So, it seems to me, simplistic as I am, that it might be within the realm of possibility to actually doubt there is such a thing as absolute and final truth, let alone certainty of truth.

The myth of scriptural inerrancy is interesting to explore, especially based on what church leaders say and have said, and their actions in regard to scriptures. The ideas essentially here are that we are limited to an imperfect view of ultimate reality because of the human involvement with Godly revelation from the celestial regions. Blake Ostler put it like this: the inspiration of scripture is not free of human interpretation, cultural biases and conceptual limitations. So really, there is no such thing as the pure word of God because it’s a product of the combination of human and divine therefore we can call it creative cooperation, with both a divine and human imprint. And then this is not to be seen as necessarily a heterogeneous mixture of divine and human voices. Huh? Then what do we call it? What is it then? And on the other hand, other LDS voices ask that we think of it as the interaction between divine and human which is both fully divine and fully human in the writings. Now this is simply incoherent nonsense. Something cannot be 100% fire and 100% water at the same time. Something cannot be 100% divine and 100% human at the same time.(p. 4) So we are in the realm of “heck I don’t know, but these cool sounding words will help us understand it better,” which actually does not work. It is far simpler to just realize it is all human production and the divine input has been invented in order to make ones particular interpretation seem stronger and better than another’s. The law of Parsimony would say that is the real option. Occam’s Razor would say shave off the extra hypothesis which is God as outside source revealed it to man. The simpler explanation with fewer assumptions is surely man invented it himself.

So now we get to one of the most bizarre, interesting, and conceptually problematic aspects in all of Mormonism, the myth of doctrinal uniformity. Hang on, this ride is a rollercoaster. Consistency is important for reality. We know this from a simple exercise in mathematics. Consistency is crucial for its success. If we had 555 + 555 = 555555 we would be rebelling and screaming at the tops of our lungs against it. That is simply not how it works with the known laws of math. It CANNOT be so. If God Almighty revealed this we would reject it as simply wrong due to the inconsistency of it based on all that we know about how real math works. Consistency demonstrates reality even within the realm of our own fallibility. This is how we grow in what we call “knowledge.” There is no reason to invoke faith anywhere here. By neither faith nor belief can we ever know that 555 + 555 = 555555. We flatly reject it, and for very good reason. It’s not consistent with what we know about how the laws of mathematical addition work, and what results obtain through its operations.

And yet again the passage of time does not deteriorate the knowledge we gain in mathematics, at least not on the front end such as the simple laws of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.(2) We know… we KNOW that 3.14159 – 3.14159 = 0. It will not change even though cultures change, thinking changes, our various types of hairdos and tattoos change. It equaled 0 in 3500 B.C. during the Uruk phase A of the Sumerian civilization, it equaled 0 on the day Jesus turned the water to wine at the miracle of Cana, it equaled 0 in 461 A. D. when a bishop of the Britons attended a council at Tours, and it equaled 0 on May 14, 1844 when Josiah Quincy Jr and Charles Francis Adams stepped off the deck of the Mississippi steamer The Amaranth at Nauvoo, Illinois, and it equals 0 right now as I am typing this book review. Time does not change this equation’s truth. So yeah, let me get back to it then…

Because of the way I was raised and taught in Mormonism, I fall under the category that Harrell describes as the phase where aside from the inconsequential details, the biblical theology is perfectly compatible with itself and with twentieth-century LDS conceptions.(p. 5) This is what I was raised to believe, trained in seminary and taught others on my mission. It is because this is what leaders of the church taught, clearly seen in the writings of LeGrand Richards, foremost of all, with James E. Talmage and Bruce R. McConkie, Paul Dunn, Spencer W. Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, and intellectually, Orson Pratt, and his brother Parley P. Pratt, (the main leaders of the church my dad kept before me and of which I read) all of which I was raised on with my mother’s milk. Mormon theology was Bible theology, and Bible theology was Mormon theology, that’s all there was to it. And questions of the Bible? Go to those church leaders, what they say is true. That is what I was raised with and where I came from and the basis for when I became a Mormon apologist, though by that time, I had discovered Hugh Nibley, and devoured him for a few decades, along with FARMS, and helped found FAIR to boot.

The more “liberal” ( I know some hate the word, just deal with it already) people realize the human element in scripture and in fact the human conditioning occurring in scripture and its stories. “Doctrinal paradigms can vary from author to author.”(p. 5) Rather, more close to reality, the Bible actually is like a “kaleidoscope of doctrines reflecting multiple theological perspectives.” Blake Ostler I think has it more correctly that there is no such thing as a Bible view of morality or God or justification, rather there are biblical concepts of these ideas. Doctrinal changes did not begin late, but are seen to be had from the very earliest time in the Bible and have not changed through the millenia. As new circumstances occurred, changes did too because people changed, and therefore revealed truth from an unchanging God had to change as well. This is what Mormonism is also. Doctrine once revealed as truth, evolves through time. Previous doctrines are overridden and discarded, or reinterpreted to be “more correct” for later times. The problem is the assumption of “an unwarranted impression of continuinity and consistency.”(p. 6)

Harrell then uses the example of blacks and the priesthood ban as an example. Many prophets said God had revealed it so that blacks cannot hold the priesthood and they would be the whites (and delightsomes) servants forever. It was God-ordained, and who can turn God’s Word around, let alone deny it? No one, it stands forever! And then, sure enough as sugar’s sweet, God revealed oh hey guys, lets go ahead and let them into the party, give em the priesthood. Bruce R. McConkie, ever the one for the holy dramatic proclaimed in stentorian voice of righteousness bellowed “Forget everything that I have said, or what Brigham Young said, or John Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation.” The implication being, of course, that incomplete truth is all God will ever reveal. Doctrines may be superceded. And, only the current prophet can overturn former revelations. Nothing is fixed. Even though they say anything is fixed, nothing is. Let that sink in. The apostasy? Not necessarily. Jesus Christ the Son of God? Not necessarily. Oh they talk of core doctrines, but those aren’t fixed either. Everything is fluid, conditional and relative. Sure Mormon leaders try to draw a line in the sand around what they call “core doctrine” but other “core doctrines” have been thrown away, so nothing is exempt. Theology cannot be set firmly once and for all in any of it. Let that sink in, in any of its claims. They claim it fills in the gaps, which it does, but it also puts us in a terrible double bind of which I will now bring out.

In every instance of former revelations which have been overturned (or practices) the revelation from God was authoritative and binding upon the people. It was the revelation of truth. People had to live it or be damned, as they had, after all, sustained it. (where did this idea of binding people come from anyway? More in a bit) Later, some of those were overturned, discarded, and repudiated and refuted, claiming in many cases that what had been given was not revelation but the prophet’s opinion. But many testified that the Holy Ghost operated perfectly in them testifying to their souls that the doctrine was pure and from God and was accurate, right, and very valuable and enlightening. That is what is ignored, as well as the ramifications for the Holy Ghost. One such case is powerfully presented concerning Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine. What you are about to read is not discussed in church when discussing the repudiation of the doctrine. The full historical context is never discussed nor its implications and ramifications for how we ought to think now about all of this. It is, indeed, sobering.

The description of Brigham Young’s first discourse on the Adam-God doctrine in the April 9, 1852 Deseret News (The Mormon Newspaper) read – “the Holy Ghost [rested] upon [him] in great power, while he revealed some of the precious things of the kingdom.”(3) Now lets understand something clearly. Joseph Smith himself taught “The Holy Ghost is a revelator and no man can received the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations.(4) James E. Talmage, one of the Church’s Apostles wrote and showed how the Holy Ghost is talked about throughout the scriptures. “The Holy Ghost shall teach you,” (Luke 12:12). The comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, shall teach you. (John 14:26). He directs the work of the ministry, he sanctifies people, he ministers unto the Gentiles, Knowledge is by the Holy Ghost, Inspires ordained men to speak scripture!(5) Orson Pratt, contemporary to Joseph Smith, another of the Mormon Apostles taught that the Holy Ghost teaches, sanctifies, and comforts the mind.(6) Parley P. Pratt brother and fellow Apostle with Orson Pratt taught the Holy Ghost would guide the person having it in all truth, bring all things into remembrance, and show them things to come.(7) Examples can be multiplied for pages. Neal A. Maxwell, yet another Mormon Apostle said of the Holy Ghost that having it shows there is a connection to our righteousness, it confirming we are righteous! He also says, and this is worth quoting “with the help of the Holy Ghost we can be lifted outside the narrow little theater of our own experience, outside our selfish concerns, and outside the confines of our tiny conceptual cells.”(8) LeGrand Richards, another Mormon Apostle, said there is great power associated with the Holy Ghost and the Spirit searches the deep things of God.(9) The Holy Ghost is one member of the Godhead, and thus, as and with God cannot lie.

Apparently this is conveniently forgotten by later prophets who wish to do away with “inconvenient truths” or “false doctrines” which ironically was revealed by God to his prophet in earlier times, hence we have the inane spectacle of God revealing false doctrine through the Holy Ghost to a prophet. When it finally sunk into obdurate heads and weak minds that Brigham Young really did teach the Adam-God doctrine, (it was denied he even taught it at all by Bruce R. McConkie, but I don’t have the reference at the moment) the strategy was not to ask if it was true, and pray and get a testimony, it was to then declare he taught it as his opinion not of revealed truth instead of not at all. But hang on here. There is yet another dimension in all this that, so far as I am aware (not much, but work with me here), hasn’t been touched yet. Gerald Lund, another Mormon Apostle has noted that “Those who have patterned their lives after the guidance of the Holy Spirit shall not be deceived.”(10) Joseph Smith mentioned on more than one occasion he deliberately got to the mysteries, and dug up further information that no one else was bothering with in order to stretch the Saints minds, to help them realize they could grow, yes it was challenging, but it was worth it. Brigham lived nearly side by side with Joseph Smith for years and years both in secret councils and public orations and building projects, missionary travel, etc. He, as well as all those around them knew what the Holy Ghost was, knew what it felt like, knew its effects on them and others, etc. But apparently that isn’t good enough. So what did the people say about this Adam-God thingy?

Samuel H. Rogers indicated Young’s sermon “was the best Conference that I ever attended.”(11) Apostle Franklin D. Richards, Elder Thomas Caffell, Elder Joseph Hall, all declared it true with Richards even saying “the prophet and apostle Brigham Young has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord.”(12) Heber C. Kimball said it was under the influence of the Spirit that he knew the doctrine was true. This was also recorded in Joseph Lee Robinson’s journal.(13) Brigham Young Himself described how it was as clear as the sun in his mind to him. “…until my mind became enlightened with the Spirit and by the revelations of God… to my mind and to my feelings those matters are all plain and easy to understand.”(14) Heber C. Kimball on another occasion later said “The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of the earth.”(15) George Q. Cannon said it was revealed to him directly that Adam was his God and father. Daniel Wells said he had it revealed and was as sure of it as any other doctrine in existence. All the believers were admonished to be careful about preaching it though unless the Holy Spirit was with them guiding them, and many did preach it. Brigham deliberately was accused then, in his own time, of merely spouting his own thinking, in response wrote in the Deseret News and it was published “….which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our Father and God…” and Buerger notes “This, then, was not a personal belief.”(16) Brigham Young knew it was true doctrine and therefore made it part of his lecture at the veil in the Holy Temple! And it was recited there during endowment sessions.(17) It has, of course, since then been removed after a few years of use. And what’s more, many other General Authorities testified to its truthfulness, and Lorenzo Snow exulted “it made him thrill through his whole body, it was new and it was inspiring” according to Franklin D. Richards.(18) Though many fought against it, of whom Brigham said the Holy Ghost was not enlightening their minds and it was their faults (some things never change), Brigham did explain “what mattered most was that his words were inspired by the Holy Ghost.”(19) It was the sermon on June 8, 1873 where Brigham Young directly claims that God revealed to him that Adam is our father and God to him.(20)

So if Brigham really did only spout his opinion, what then of the Holy Ghost testifying to so many others of its accuracy and truthfulness? Did the Holy Ghost lie continually? Or perhaps the less damning question to this charade is, do people actually know what the Holy Ghost is and how it functions? The same functions of it which the church proclaims today to assure people they have felt it, are those same effects in Brigham Young’s day. Whatever happened to out of the mouth of two or three witnesses? It’s good enough for the Book of Mormon, but not anything else? Is that consistent? We have dozens if not hundreds of witnesses testifying they received from God and the Holy Ghost the sure knowledge that Adam was God. Were they deceived or just earth-dirt ignorant about how the Holy Ghost functions? But in that case, what of those today who testify of the Holy Ghost in the same manner and with the same effects those earlier witnesses had claimed but were wrong? Are today’s effects real, or are the Saints still earth-dirt ignorant about how the Holy Ghost functions and hence are deceived in today’s claimed truths just as the earlier saints were? These are tough questions we are going to have to confront someday. They certainly are not going away anytime soon.(21)

If we are not to give heed to words of former prophets who misspoke, even while claiming it was direct revelation, and hence binding(!) because they really were just giving their own opinions, how do we know today’s prophets who are claiming the same kind of revelations with the same kind of effects of the Holy Ghost (and hence finally having “real” revelations) are not also just giving their own opinions? We can’t very well go by everyone else who also claims the Holy Ghost told them today’s prophets speak truth, about today’s doctrines, since that is what the earlier LDS audiences claimed and by the same power, and they were all either deceived, or don’t know what the Holy Ghost is like! The same spiritual effect of the Holy Ghost testifying to us today that what we know is true, is the exact same thing testifying to the early saints that the Adam-God doctrine was true. Let that sink in.

But, unfortunately there actually is more. “What else do the Prophets, seers, and revelators of the Mormon Church have wrong?”(22) How can we know if they are just giving their own opinions and fallible, and hence incorrect, interpretations of the Great Apostasy and the need for a Restoration? After all, this stems back to Joseph Smith’s word alone. He may very well have gotten it wrong. But he had his First Vision we are told! But that also is an interpretation about an event that he cannot ever get the story straight about, (let alone have any witnesses to the event, suspiciously enough) we now possessing several conflicting and contradicting interpretations from Joseph Smith himself! Nothing is sure, everything is tentative. Remember, when a former doctrine is repudiated, it is through the prophet’s fallibility and humanness and inability to grasp the full truth, well that does not exclude Joseph Smith and his story and interpretations. He is as culpable as all of us to error, even possibly gross error such as that of Brigham Young. This is the problematic ramifications of today’s prophets throwing former day prophet’s revelations out the window as mere opinions. We have no sound basis for discovering when something is accurate and true doctrine and when it is opinion, either then or now, either with anything Joseph Smith ever said, or today’s living prophet.

Many testify, and they are not being discouraged by Mormon General Authorities from saying otherwise, that they know with a profound certainty their testimony is true. Yet former prophets holding all priesthood keys, all the keys to the mysteries of Godliness, receiving all revelations for an entire church are now known (if today’s prophets can be believed that is), to have been wrong in their own prophetic certainty. Let that sink in. To make matters far worse we have John Widtsoe’s take on the matter, not a mere farmer , but a valid scientist-Apostle.

John A. Widtsoe, an Scientist/Apostle in Mormonism at the turn of the last century, was so certain that the prophets are so much more enlightened than any of the rest of us, that he even went so far as to advocate us to believe “he [a prophet] can never divest himself of the spirit and influence which belong to the sacred office which the Lord has placed upon him… he lives under inspired guidance, which makes him great among men, and therefore his unofficial expressions carry greater weight than the opinions of other men of equal or greater gifts and experience but without the power of the prophetic office. It would be wisdom on all occasions and with respect to all subjects in any field of human activity, to hearken to the prophet’s voice. There is safety and ultimate happiness in following the counsel that may be received from a prophet.”(23)

We rub our very eyes in utter astonishment at the chutzpah here! In absolutely everything, and anything the prophetic wisdom is superior and best in any field of human activity?!? And Widtsoe is serious in this wildly ridiculous claim. But weirdly enough, we have today gross anomalies with many members proclaiming without any feeling of embarrassment over the untrustworthy view that they have certainty, absolute certainty, while today’s prophets are saying even prophets don’t have this certainty available to them, even when they use the Holy Ghost, so how can members be saying this which they believe is because of the Holy Ghost?!? Something is seriously amiss and skewed here.

The incoherencies and inconsistencies are overwhelming.
1. Doctrinal and scriptural inconsistencies
2. Alleged personal or authoritative revelation which corrects, reinterprets, supersedes, or disavows a false doctrine prior, official and binding revelation declared as true doctrine and taught as such by former Presidents of the Church
3. Putatively revealed or inspired changes or corrections to canonized scripture and sacred principles, ordinances, practices, and rituals believed to be established and required by prior revelations.

Mormonism cannot have it both ways to follow the prophet no matter what, even though he is fallible (yet presented as such as being greater and more trustworthy than all other men in all other fields(!!) and activities) and yet excommunicate and shame when people question and criticize their very bad choices in their fallibility, and excommunicate when doctrines prophets present, are disagreed with, and yet pull the plug on former doctrines the prophets disagree with as being false. Prophets are not infallible, but the Mormon authorities do not do anything to dissuade their members to accept this. They do everything they can to make it appear that they have full certainty in their revelations and doctrines, yet betray that trust when they throw out former doctrines, and punish those who disagree with their own doctrines, which are actually only beliefs fallibly understood anyway. How can anyone ever regard or rely on any claimed revelation from any of the prophets on anything they say?!

The concept of revelation turns out not to be the anchor of truth they have portrayed it to be. It is changeable, it can be wrong, it can be given by revelation and by revelation be then claimed to have been false. That just doesn’t work. Is it right or wrong. Well, we don’t know… yet… enough time hasn’t gone by to determine if its right or wrong. Huh? A direct revelation from an all knowing God and we aren’t sure if its right or not? Then pray tell, for real, what is the point of any of this theology? But accept it for long enough until the next revelation comes along and says well, that one you have been living by is wrong?! That’s what happened with the highest celestial law for making us literal Gods and Goddesses, polygamy. Is that seriously what we are to do, all the while imagining by the Holy Ghost what we think we know is true, and are certain of it, only to be told in 20 years from now it wasn’t true after all? And this is real truth? Just what else are you hiding that isn’t true, but we are supposed to be living? Tithing perhaps…

No wonder they don’t want us to grasp the implications of their swerving around like a crazy drunk with various doctrines here and there and everywhere with who knows or cares what their status to truth really is. The prophets don’t even know the true doctrine from God Himself, since he won’t give it right the first time. He said to his prophets (plural!) that polygamy was the correct way, in both doctrine and practice. The only celestial law to worry about. Well, it works out they were wrong. So is their now current in vogue celestial law right? There is no way to know of certainty, since the Holy Ghost didn’t work correctly back then, there is no way to know if it works now. You have to live by faith though. Why? The earlier saints did, and they were living a wrong doctrine, several of them in fact, if it didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now. To be Continued…


Endnotes
1. This is breath takingly displayed in his dealings with BYU scholar Eugene England on the subject of whether God knew everything or not, see Eugene England, “Making Peace,” Signature Books, 1995: 33-37.
2. The reason I put it this way is because there actually is uncertainty in mathematics and it can never lead us to final or absolute certainty as Morris Kline has masterfully demonstrated in his magnificent book “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty,” Barnes & Noble edition, 2009.
3. David John Buerger, “The Adam-God Doctrine,” in “Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon Thought,” Spring 1982: 14.
4. “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book, 22nd printing, 1973, p. 328.
5. James E. Talmage, “The Articles of Faith,” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1958: 169-170.
6. Orson Pratt, “Writings of an Apostle,” “The Holy Spirit,” (p. 56) Mormon Heritage Publishers, 1976
7. Parley P. Pratt, “A Voice of Warning,” Classics in Mormon Literature, Deseret Book Co., 1979: 45.
8. Neal A. Maxwell, “What Should We Pray For?” in “Prayer,” Deseret Book, 1977: 45.
9. LeGrand Richards, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder,” Deseret Book, 1976: 118.
10. Gerald Lund, “The Coming of the Lord,” Deseret Book, 1st paperback, 2005: 228.
11. Buerger, Ibid., p. 15.
12. Buerger, p. 20.
13. Buerger, p. 22.
14. Buerger, p. 23.
15. Buerger, p. 27.
16. Buerger, p. 31.
17. Buerger, p. 32f.
18. Buerger, p. 34.
19. Buerger, p. 46, note 9.
20. Buerger, p. 52, note 67.
21. Thomas Riskas, “Deconstructing Mormonism,” also deals with these issues on pages 173ff.
22. Riskas, Ibid., p. 174.
23. John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences & Reconciliations,” Arranged by G. Homer Durham, 3 Vols., Bookcraft, 5th printing, 1967: 237.

[Hagoth]

Great stuff, Kerry. How is it that these problems are so blaringly obvious once you allow yourself to see it, but so well veiled when you aren't ready to poke your head out?

I see there's already a part 3. How do you find time to write all of this, let alone read all of those books?

[Apologeticsislying]

Great stuff, Kerry. How is it that these problems are so blaringly obvious once you allow yourself to see it, but so well veiled when you aren't ready to poke your head out?

I see there's already a part 3. How do you find time to write all of this, let alone read all of those books?

I sincerely do not know how it is not seen when you are on the inside, but it doesn't register the same as when you all the sudden see it from an outsiders point of view.
Yes, the reason there is already a part 3 is because I was afraid part 2 was way too long. I will try to keep these at about 5 pages from now on. If it gets too long many just won't bother reading them.

I've been reading most my life, and all these were already under my belt, that's how I knew where to go to cite them - GRIN! I've been very blessed to be able to read well, I think anyway. I have been accused of being a dough head, and probably more justifiably than not....Lol!

I also type very fast. I am blessed with that ability as well. At one time I was clocked at 120 words per minute, but now it's nowhere near that.