"This Is My Doctrine" The Development of Mormon Theology

[græy]

So, I've been slowly working my way through the book "This is My Doctrine" The Development of Mormon Theology by Charles Harrell. I am as of right now only about 15% of the way through Part 1. Already I feel that Dr. Harrell is tearing apart Mormon theology. All kinds of "prophecies" used to justify Joseph Smith's call as a prophet, the restoration, or even the foundation of a unified church of Christ, have already been ripped to shreds.

I'm only 15% of the way through, but I have a hard time seeing how he gets from here to any sort of a faith affirming conclusion.

Either way, I'm happy to share bits and pieces that stand out to me if anyone is interested.

In the meantime, I want to vent just a little. Over the past couple of weeks, I have shared a few items that jumped out to me from the book with my wife. Usually, she just nods or "hmphs" and goes about her business. Last night I brought up this quote from Marion G. Romney in 1972...

Now, the Lord not only directed Joseph to organize his church: he told him what to name it.

It is a fact worth noting that of all the churches then claiming to represent Christ, not one of them bore his name. Joseph learned from the teachings of Jesus to the Nephites that no church could be Christ’s church unless it did bear his name. When the Nephites raised the question about what to name his church, Jesus, as he ministered among them, said:

“… how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.” (3 Ne. 27:8.)

This statement gives us the twofold test: Christ’s church (1) must bear his name, and (2) must be built upon his gospel.

The only reason I know of this quote is because it was re-shared in a recent GC address, though I can't seem to find it now.

In chapter 3, Dr. Harrell states:

Restorationist scholar Robert Mallet notes that, between 1794 and 1835, at least six different restoration churches sprang up in America,
all claiming to be Christ's restored church. Contrary to the assertion that no other church in Joseph Smith's day bore Christ's name, all six of these church incorporated "Christ" in their title...

I read that part to my wife and then went on to try and discuss the fact that in 1834 Joseph Smith changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter-day Saints," dropping "Christ" completely. This change seems to have been a contributing factor to some of the early apostasy and claims that church leadership was already fallen.

At that point my wife asked me to stop sharing negative information about the church... at least on Sundays. She wants one day of the week to feel good about the church. I thought this was a fairly benign topic, but I guess it went too far for sabbath-day conversation.

Anyway, there is a lot of good stuff in this book. I highly recommend it so far. Although, knowing that Dr. Harrell is an active BYU professor, I'm assuming he has to bring this around to a positive light at some point, though I'm not sure how he'll do that.

[Hagoth]

I read that part to my wife and then went on to try and discuss the fact that in 1834 Joseph Smith changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter-day Saints," dropping "Christ" completely. This change seems to have been a contributing factor to some of the early apostasy and claims that church leadership was already fallen.

To add insult to injury, I believe the real reason that God changed the name of the church was to legally distance Joseph Smith from his ongoing bank scandal.

I really enjoyed Harrell's book. I would love to know exactly what's going on inside his head, considering the devastating implications of his research. I can't remember what he does at the end to try to put in a faithful perspective, if anything at all, because whatever it was totally failed to make an impression on me compared to the rest of the information in the book. Harrell continues to be a recommend-bearing, prophet sustaining BYU professor, so he can get away with logically dismantling the church in this way. Maybe that's because this book has made much less of a splash than it should have. I imagine if he published another edition that was identical except for the addition of a single paragraph that overtly questioned the authority of current church leadership he would be hung out to dry faster than he could say "Jack Mormon."

[Corsair]

Let us know if Dr. Harrell manages to end the book on an LDS faith-affirming note.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Let us know if Dr. Harrell manages to end the book on an LDS faith-affirming note.

I can tell you that his last chapter does indeed try to reconcile the mess and attempt to justify continued support of the church for pragmatic reasons. It feels like that's how Professor Harrell keeps himself out of trouble for writing the book as a BYU faculty member. If you haven't heard Charles' interview with Bill Reel on mormondiscussionspodcast, I highly recommend it. He talks of his discomfort with the "only true church" dogma.

One of my favorite parts of his book and a giant ah ha moment for me was when he discusses James Talmage in the 20th century resolving that Jehovah is Jesus and not the father. It was a "WTF?!" moment that Joseph who supposedly communed with Jehovah in person didn't know who he was in the scriptures and left confusing references of him being Elohim in the Kirtland temple dedication. Talmage had to clean up a giant godhead mess.

[Mormorrisey]

I read that part to my wife and then went on to try and discuss the fact that in 1834 Joseph Smith changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter-day Saints," dropping "Christ" completely. This change seems to have been a contributing factor to some of the early apostasy and claims that church leadership was already fallen.

To add insult to injury, I believe the real reason that God changed the name of the church was to legally distance Joseph Smith from his ongoing bank scandal.

I believe that in his pamphlet "To All Believers in Christ" David Whitmer claimed that this was the central reason he left, when Joseph changed the name of the church and took Christ out of it. I'd buy that, but with the Fanny Alger/Bank fiascos looming over Joseph as well, this seems to be a really lame reason for David to leave. But who knows?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I read that part to my wife and then went on to try and discuss the fact that in 1834 Joseph Smith changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter-day Saints," dropping "Christ" completely. This change seems to have been a contributing factor to some of the early apostasy and claims that church leadership was already fallen.

To add insult to injury, I believe the real reason that God changed the name of the church was to legally distance Joseph Smith from his ongoing bank scandal.

I believe that in his pamphlet "To All Believers in Christ" David Whitmer claimed that this was the central reason he left, when Joseph changed the name of the church and took Christ out of it. I'd buy that, but with the Fanny Alger/Bank fiascos looming over Joseph as well, this seems to be a really lame reason for David to leave. But who knows?

David Whitmer cites other primary reasons as well, the central one being the changes made to the revelations in the D&C. Also have to bear in mind he was human like all of us and we can all cite different reasons for being pissed at the church. He was still a believer in the BOM and Christ so I can see him caring about that topic.

[MalcolmVillager]

This is a great book. I still have 1/3 left but I felt like I got the jist of it. Maybe I should try to finish it.

He does a great job of deconstructing so many things in a matter of fact way that doesn't come across as completely anti. He is not the most engaging writer which makes the book pretty dry. Maybe this is because he really tries to eliminate personal stories or even conclusions.

His podcast with Bill Reel is great. I want to say he does a Mormon stories podcast as well but I may be wrong.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This is a great book. I still have 1/3 left but I felt like I got the jist of it. Maybe I should try to finish it.

He does a great job of deconstructing so many things in a matter of fact way that doesn't come across as completely anti. He is not the most engaging writer which makes the book pretty dry. Maybe this is because he really tries to eliminate personal stories or even conclusions.

His podcast with Bill Reel is great. I want to say he does a Mormon stories podcast as well but I may be wrong.

It is dry with some gems and diamonds here and there. I consider it more of a reference manual like unto "encyclopedia of mormonism" but for NOMs.

[Hagoth]

He talks of his discomfort with the "only true church" dogma.

I have heard this from a number of the new wave of Givens-ian type apologists, including Fiona Givens. The problem is that it just doesn't work. If you overlook the one true church requirement, everything goes out the window: sealing ordinances, the temple, work for the dead, the prophets, seers and revelators, the restoration, priesthood power and authority, etc. These things ONLY make sense in a one-and-only-true-church scenario. So, if you don't have those things, why put up with all of the bigotry, bullh*t, and boredom (the e Bs) that goes along with it?

[Reuben]

He talks of his discomfort with the "only true church" dogma.

I have heard this from a number of the new wave of Givens-ian type apologists, including Fiona Givens. The problem is that it just doesn't work. If you overlook the one true church requirement, everything goes out the window: sealing ordinances, the temple, work for the dead, the prophets, seers and revelators, the restoration, priesthood power and authority, etc. These things ONLY make sense in a one-and-only-true-church scenario. So, if you don't have those things, why put up with all of the bigotry, bullh*t, and boredom (the e Bs) that goes along with it?

I think you end up severely weakening the assurances you gain from them, so that the assurances become only hopes instead. For some people, that seems to be enough, and worth the price of the Bs.

[NOMinally Mormon]

So, if you don't have those things, why put up with all of the bigotry, bullh*t, and boredom (the e Bs) that goes along with it?

I think Hinckley left out those "B"s