What do you think?
Rate this book
This Is My Doctrine
“This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology
The principal doctrines defining Mormonism today often bear little resemblance to those it started out with in the early 1830s. This book shows that these doctrines did not originate in a vacuum but were rather prompted and informed by the religious culture from which Mormonism arose. Early Mormons, like their early Christian and even earlier Israelite predecessors, brought with them their own varied culturally conditioned theological presuppositions (a process of convergence) and only later acquired a more distinctive theological outlook (a process of differentiation). In this first-of-its-kind comprehensive treatment of the development of Mormon theology, Charles Harrell traces the history of Latter-day Saint doctrines from the times of the Old Testament to the present. He describes how Mormonism has carried on the tradition of the biblical authors, early Christians, and later Protestants in reinterpreting scripture to accommodate new theological ideas while attempting to uphold the integrity and authority of the scriptures. In the process, he probes three How did Mormon doctrines develop? What are the scriptural underpinnings of these doctrines? And what do critical scholars make of these same scriptures? In this enlightening study, Harrell systematically peels back the doctrinal accretions of time to provide a fresh new look at Mormon theology. "This Is My Doctrine" will provide those already versed in Mormonism's theological tradition with a new and richer perspective of Mormon theology. Those unacquainted with Mormonism will gain an appreciation for how Mormon theology fits into the larger Jewish and Christian theological traditions.
583 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
45 people are currently reading
278 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
October 5, 2011
It’s official,
“This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology
is required reading.
Written by BYU professor Charles Harrell, this sorely needed book examines the origins of LDS doctrine as we know it today. It is not, of course, an exhaustive treatment of the subject, which would require a whole series of books (and this one clocks in at just about 500 pages). However, it is a tremendous resource that is worth devouring straight through, but will also prove an excellent juming-off point for future reference and study (it’s got good indexes and a vast works cited section).
After an introductory essay––worth reading all on it’s own––the volume proceeds, chapter by chapter, to tackle major doctrines (say, God the Father, or Priesthood) historically. That is, it addresses what beliefs were held in the Old Testament period, New Testament Christianity, 19th-Century Protestantism, then early and modern Mormonism, about each given subject. There are occasional subsections that examine, for instance, thought in the Nauvoo period, if doctrinal developments were particularly significant during those years.
His scriptural exegesis may not have been quite as sophisticated as I would have liked, but, again, for a book of this length, it likely wouldn’t have been feasible to go much deeper. Also, Harrell is not a theologian (though he has published some articles in that arena) so he relies heavily on secondary sources in Biblical criticism. He uses them well, however, staying mainly in areas of broad consensus, and, where there is controversy, presenting a variety of views.
The target audience seems to be Joe Mormon, so those familiar with scholarly work in this area may find a little too much “hand-holding,” but you can’t fault him––I really hope this book finds its way into the hands of many, many Saints, so anything he can do to make it accessible is a plus.
Most importantly, this book helps readers to take the really vital step of shattering one’s idea of theology as God dictating perfect, simple, clear Truth, reducing prophets to secretaries. It reveals that it is a complicated, messy, sometimes contradictory process of serious minds wrestling with the big questions in terms of the texts they’ve inherited and the culture they’re swimming in.
Burn The Stick of Bruce, folks.* This book is the real deal, and it belongs on every LDS bookshelf.
_________________
*Actually, don’t burn Mormon Doctrine. It’s no longer being printed and so may have some value as a collector’s item.
Written by BYU professor Charles Harrell, this sorely needed book examines the origins of LDS doctrine as we know it today. It is not, of course, an exhaustive treatment of the subject, which would require a whole series of books (and this one clocks in at just about 500 pages). However, it is a tremendous resource that is worth devouring straight through, but will also prove an excellent juming-off point for future reference and study (it’s got good indexes and a vast works cited section).
After an introductory essay––worth reading all on it’s own––the volume proceeds, chapter by chapter, to tackle major doctrines (say, God the Father, or Priesthood) historically. That is, it addresses what beliefs were held in the Old Testament period, New Testament Christianity, 19th-Century Protestantism, then early and modern Mormonism, about each given subject. There are occasional subsections that examine, for instance, thought in the Nauvoo period, if doctrinal developments were particularly significant during those years.
His scriptural exegesis may not have been quite as sophisticated as I would have liked, but, again, for a book of this length, it likely wouldn’t have been feasible to go much deeper. Also, Harrell is not a theologian (though he has published some articles in that arena) so he relies heavily on secondary sources in Biblical criticism. He uses them well, however, staying mainly in areas of broad consensus, and, where there is controversy, presenting a variety of views.
The target audience seems to be Joe Mormon, so those familiar with scholarly work in this area may find a little too much “hand-holding,” but you can’t fault him––I really hope this book finds its way into the hands of many, many Saints, so anything he can do to make it accessible is a plus.
Most importantly, this book helps readers to take the really vital step of shattering one’s idea of theology as God dictating perfect, simple, clear Truth, reducing prophets to secretaries. It reveals that it is a complicated, messy, sometimes contradictory process of serious minds wrestling with the big questions in terms of the texts they’ve inherited and the culture they’re swimming in.
Burn The Stick of Bruce, folks.* This book is the real deal, and it belongs on every LDS bookshelf.
_________________
*Actually, don’t burn Mormon Doctrine. It’s no longer being printed and so may have some value as a collector’s item.
September 29, 2013
Unfortunately this book wasn't about what I thought it would be about. It purports to be a development of Mormon theology from Joseph Smith's time until our day. I wanted to learn how theology had changed due to social pressures or revelation (or both).
Instead it was more of a debunking of Mormon interpretations of ancient scripture. The author would quote a scripture from the Bible, explain the Mormon interpretation of it, and then try to prove how that interpretation was clearly wrong. The Bible, from the author's interpretation, didn't have any end-time prophecies at all. He alleges that all Biblical prophecies were meant only for the contemporary civilization of the time and referred only to the near future.
And while I agree in some cases (I think all religions are guilty of interpreting scripture to mean whatever supports their doctrine) I found that I didn't care much. The format for every paragraph was generally something like: "Person A (Mormon) says that Scripture Y means THIS. However, Scholar B says that Scripture Y really means THAT." So...we can have two different interpretations of the same scripture. Unless someone manages to interview Isaiah or Daniel I think they'll have a hard time proving definitively which meaning was actually intended.
There was a little bit of theology development, and I found these parts interesting. For example, when talking about Job's "sons of God", Harrell notes that Parley P. Pratt said that scripture referred to resurrected beings from bygone worlds--the doctrine of a preexistence hadn't been introduced yet in LDS teachings when Pratt was speaking. Once the Plan of Salvation was more thoroughly understood, this scripture was interpreted differently. I think this demonstrates the evolving nature of the church I attend: we don't claim (or shouldn't claim) to understand anything perfectly right now. In fact, one of the basic tenets of our faith is that we believe God "will yet reveal many great and important things."
Although there were a few choice nuggets, this wasn't the right book to explore church doctrine.
Instead it was more of a debunking of Mormon interpretations of ancient scripture. The author would quote a scripture from the Bible, explain the Mormon interpretation of it, and then try to prove how that interpretation was clearly wrong. The Bible, from the author's interpretation, didn't have any end-time prophecies at all. He alleges that all Biblical prophecies were meant only for the contemporary civilization of the time and referred only to the near future.
And while I agree in some cases (I think all religions are guilty of interpreting scripture to mean whatever supports their doctrine) I found that I didn't care much. The format for every paragraph was generally something like: "Person A (Mormon) says that Scripture Y means THIS. However, Scholar B says that Scripture Y really means THAT." So...we can have two different interpretations of the same scripture. Unless someone manages to interview Isaiah or Daniel I think they'll have a hard time proving definitively which meaning was actually intended.
There was a little bit of theology development, and I found these parts interesting. For example, when talking about Job's "sons of God", Harrell notes that Parley P. Pratt said that scripture referred to resurrected beings from bygone worlds--the doctrine of a preexistence hadn't been introduced yet in LDS teachings when Pratt was speaking. Once the Plan of Salvation was more thoroughly understood, this scripture was interpreted differently. I think this demonstrates the evolving nature of the church I attend: we don't claim (or shouldn't claim) to understand anything perfectly right now. In fact, one of the basic tenets of our faith is that we believe God "will yet reveal many great and important things."
Although there were a few choice nuggets, this wasn't the right book to explore church doctrine.
September 19, 2013
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.
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.
November 29, 2012
This book is touted as a discussion of the development of Mormon theology. But as I read it I got the distinct impression that, while it does deal with the development of Mormon theology, it was more a criticism of Mormon theology.
In the preface the author states, "The interpretation of theological history presented herein is based primarily on critical scholarship and contextual analysis, which sometimes lead to different conclusions than those found in traditional LDS narratives. My purpose in calling attention to these differences is not to refute or disparage LDS beliefs, but rather to stimulate reflection on how the narratives promoting these beliefs developed." As I read the book it seemed to me that Harrell systematically presented many early Mormon doctrines as essentially the same as contemporary Christian beliefs, suggesting that Joseph Smith was simply parroting what local Christians believed. He also presents the views of scholars as refuting Mormon interpretations of Biblical passages, leaving the impression that Mormon interpretations are naive and incorrect. So, even though it is not his purpose to refute or disparage LDS beliefs, it seems to me his manner of presentation does just that in many cases. It may be that I am overly sensitive about this, so I leave it to the reader of this review to read some of the text and draw your own conclusions. You can see some of the pages on Amazon by using their "Surprise me" link.
So at this stage of my reading, I'm thinking the book rates a 2 or at best a 3. And I'm wondering why the author remains, as he says in the preface, "an active Latter-day Saint". He doesn't live too far from me and I was thinking I'd like to meet him and ask about that. Then I read the last chapter, his Epilogue, where he satisfactorily answers that very question and puts all that he wrote into perspective.
So, on balance, I really like the book. It will be challenging reading for any Mormon who believes in the infallibility of the Prophet, but it will be healthy reading for those who realize everyone, including prophets (ancient and modern), are fallible human beings struggling to do their best to live a life worthy of the designation Christian.
In the preface the author states, "The interpretation of theological history presented herein is based primarily on critical scholarship and contextual analysis, which sometimes lead to different conclusions than those found in traditional LDS narratives. My purpose in calling attention to these differences is not to refute or disparage LDS beliefs, but rather to stimulate reflection on how the narratives promoting these beliefs developed." As I read the book it seemed to me that Harrell systematically presented many early Mormon doctrines as essentially the same as contemporary Christian beliefs, suggesting that Joseph Smith was simply parroting what local Christians believed. He also presents the views of scholars as refuting Mormon interpretations of Biblical passages, leaving the impression that Mormon interpretations are naive and incorrect. So, even though it is not his purpose to refute or disparage LDS beliefs, it seems to me his manner of presentation does just that in many cases. It may be that I am overly sensitive about this, so I leave it to the reader of this review to read some of the text and draw your own conclusions. You can see some of the pages on Amazon by using their "Surprise me" link.
So at this stage of my reading, I'm thinking the book rates a 2 or at best a 3. And I'm wondering why the author remains, as he says in the preface, "an active Latter-day Saint". He doesn't live too far from me and I was thinking I'd like to meet him and ask about that. Then I read the last chapter, his Epilogue, where he satisfactorily answers that very question and puts all that he wrote into perspective.
So, on balance, I really like the book. It will be challenging reading for any Mormon who believes in the infallibility of the Prophet, but it will be healthy reading for those who realize everyone, including prophets (ancient and modern), are fallible human beings struggling to do their best to live a life worthy of the designation Christian.
June 30, 2014
This is the single most fascinating book ever written on Mormon doctrine and history. Some may consider this an indictment of Mormonism and for anyone used to armchair apologetics, the professionalism and honestly with which this book is written may require a double take, but Harrell only tells the truth as he charts the development of doctrines. One of the most important concepts to his analysis is "prooftext" or using an unrelated passage out of its context as a proof for a particular interpretation of another passage. We all must realize when we prooftext and that it is an unsupportable rationale for any interpretation. If this book is an indictment of Mormonism, it is an indictment of all Christianity, but it is not meant to be either. Harrell sets out to chart the history of doctrines and help others understand how to honestly and rationally support them without recourse to prooftext.
December 29, 2011
I could post the very same review for this book that I posted for "A Clockwork Orange": Very disturbing, thought-provoking, and awesome book. Disturbing is probably not the right word, but it might be for some people. Keep in mind that this book is sold at Deseret Book, so it's certainly not anti-Mormon. It's like the Gospel Principles manual on steroids. But if you are under the assumption that doctrinal truth is eternal and unchanging, this book will show you how wrong you are. In a church based on continuing revelation, our doctrine is just that -- ever changing depending on new revelation. And boy have things changed, not just as Joseph Smith progressed over the course of his ministry, but over the entire course of LDS church history. If you are interested in learning WHY you believe what you believe and where these beliefs came from, this is the book for you.
July 20, 2014
I don't agree with every interpretation offered in this book. In a couple of places, I felt the author was reading into the scriptural texts he was discussing only to invalidate the proposed interpretation. On a related note, it's worth remembering that Bible scholars, historians, and other cited experts never will (or even could) confirm certain interpretations of scripture (e.g. that alleged but vague or ambiguous prophecy X really was foretelling future event Y). Thus, I think there is room to disagree with the author (or his cited experts) on at least a few points (if one is so inclined). Regardless, this is an indispensable resource, a must-have for anyone interested in Mormon studies.
July 24, 2012
Great overview of modern LDS doctrine and how environmental factors have played a role in the LDS Church's development. A great reference book and a must have for LDS families. I am surprised this book didn't make larger waves within the LDS community.
January 19, 2023
I've long been interested in a book which lays out the theology of Mormonism in an orderly and easy to digest fashion. I first tried Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: Volume 1, The Attributes of God and found it to be so dense with detail and so riddled with obscure philosophical terms as to be unreadable.
This book is a big improvement over that. I'm not sure anyone would ever read the book straight through. I think it's better as a reference, with each chapter covering a specific point of theology. For example, there's a chapter on the godhead and plurality of gods and another on the fall and nature of the nature of humanity. And there are also chapters on the preexistence, creation, the resurrection, salvation for the dead, etc. Plus there’s one whole chapter, albeit of just six pages, devoted to Satan.
The only one I have looked at so far is the first chapter, which is specifically about theology. It offers some very interesting insights into how doctrine becomes doctrine and the shared role of both humans and divinity in the creation of scripture and of theological beliefs.
I've heard that Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion is another very useful book for reading about Mormon theology. I have a copy but have not cracked it yet.
Lastly, I should also mention that some recommend B. H. Roberts's Studies of the Book of Mormon, as well. Again, I have a copy of it but have not taken a close look at it yet.
This book is a big improvement over that. I'm not sure anyone would ever read the book straight through. I think it's better as a reference, with each chapter covering a specific point of theology. For example, there's a chapter on the godhead and plurality of gods and another on the fall and nature of the nature of humanity. And there are also chapters on the preexistence, creation, the resurrection, salvation for the dead, etc. Plus there’s one whole chapter, albeit of just six pages, devoted to Satan.
The only one I have looked at so far is the first chapter, which is specifically about theology. It offers some very interesting insights into how doctrine becomes doctrine and the shared role of both humans and divinity in the creation of scripture and of theological beliefs.
I've heard that Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion is another very useful book for reading about Mormon theology. I have a copy but have not cracked it yet.
Lastly, I should also mention that some recommend B. H. Roberts's Studies of the Book of Mormon, as well. Again, I have a copy of it but have not taken a close look at it yet.
July 4, 2025
The title of this book is not an accurate depiction of its content. This book is more about what the Bible, Book of Mormon, (sometimes) early Christianity, 1800's protestants, early Mormonism, Nauvoo-period Mormonism, and present-day Mormonism generally say about different theological topics. It's a "compare and contrast" exercise without much discussion of the actual development of Mormon thought (i.e., the causes/influences/motives behind the changes in Mormon teachings over the years). And although I already knew much of what this book says about the theology of the Old Testament, New Testament, and early Christianity, and even though the discussion of each topic during each time period is nothing more than a summary with sources cited in footnotes, it was interesting reading about the different ways different people in different time periods thought of various theological topics.
March 13, 2023
This book is highly informative in its approach to Mormon theology and how it has changed over the years. The author, Charles Harrell, is a professor at BYU, so hardly an enemy to the LDS faith. He discusses the LDS/Mormon view of the Godhead, beliefs on race, covenants and rites, the afterlife, and many other topics. Worth your time if you are interested in the topic at all.
May 6, 2017
Interesting read on how Mormon doctrine has changed throughout its history.
March 10, 2015
What an ambitious book. For me, despite considering myself fairly well read in Mormon history, it contained surprising amount of new information and helped me connect the dots on a lot of issues that were just floating randomly in a doctrinal soap.
Harrell's thesis is that doctrine evolves. Not just in a "line upon line, precept upon precept" fashion (which does often happen, as documented herein), but in a dramatic "this is the new doctrine that totally contradicts the old doctrine" fashion. So, complete reversals on doctrines. That's news to many Mormons who are told that doctrine doesn't change in any substantive way.
Of course, as Harrell writes in his excellent preface, we're (ostensibly) a religion centered on the premise of further revelation on "many great and important things". Buckle your seat belt if you've only been paying lip service to this faith tenet.
Sometimes this tenet will challenge understanding of core foundational Mormon issues. For instance, while Harrell doesn't outright say it, the Book of Mormon neatly fits into the theological views Joseph Smith held in 1830 while curiously omitting later doctrinal developments. Other books of scripture do this as well. The First Vision does it. This will likely be very unsettling for some Mormons to understand.
Ultimately, the book is too ambitious, though. It flows like an encyclopedia, by which I mean, not at all. It's jam-packed with refutations of prooftexts, which while very interesting and useful, slow down what little organic narrative there is. I really think the prooftexts should've been moved to an appendix.
Also, sometimes the author delves deep into the weeds of the Old Testament, which is clearly at the edges of his understanding, and I think a more concise summary of these elements would've made for a stronger book.
Finally, WHERE IS A VISUAL TIMELINE OF THESE DOCTRINES? Surely the author created one while he was putting together the book. I am now obsessed with the notion of a visual timeline that neatly (to the extent possible, of course) lays out all the various doctrinal developments.
Harrell's thesis is that doctrine evolves. Not just in a "line upon line, precept upon precept" fashion (which does often happen, as documented herein), but in a dramatic "this is the new doctrine that totally contradicts the old doctrine" fashion. So, complete reversals on doctrines. That's news to many Mormons who are told that doctrine doesn't change in any substantive way.
Of course, as Harrell writes in his excellent preface, we're (ostensibly) a religion centered on the premise of further revelation on "many great and important things". Buckle your seat belt if you've only been paying lip service to this faith tenet.
Sometimes this tenet will challenge understanding of core foundational Mormon issues. For instance, while Harrell doesn't outright say it, the Book of Mormon neatly fits into the theological views Joseph Smith held in 1830 while curiously omitting later doctrinal developments. Other books of scripture do this as well. The First Vision does it. This will likely be very unsettling for some Mormons to understand.
Ultimately, the book is too ambitious, though. It flows like an encyclopedia, by which I mean, not at all. It's jam-packed with refutations of prooftexts, which while very interesting and useful, slow down what little organic narrative there is. I really think the prooftexts should've been moved to an appendix.
Also, sometimes the author delves deep into the weeds of the Old Testament, which is clearly at the edges of his understanding, and I think a more concise summary of these elements would've made for a stronger book.
Finally, WHERE IS A VISUAL TIMELINE OF THESE DOCTRINES? Surely the author created one while he was putting together the book. I am now obsessed with the notion of a visual timeline that neatly (to the extent possible, of course) lays out all the various doctrinal developments.
July 8, 2012
An in depth discussion of the evolution of Mormon Teachings. This book is the first half of a work that was split into two volumes when published as an ebook. It is not written to persuade people about the truthfulness of LDS doctrine: rather, it is a scholarly discussion of how teachings have changed over time.
There is a discussion early on about several myths that exist within the LDS church, including the myth of prophetic infallibility and the myth that church doctrine has always been the same. There is also extensive discussion of proof-texting, the practice of using scripture to support a doctrine for which it was not originally intended.
After those introductory sections it proceeds to discuss the most very basic teachings of the LDS church, comparing the various teachings and doctrines as taught by leaders of the church in different eras. While you might expect these teachings to stay the same over time, they have changed in surprising ways. Critics of the church may point to these changes as evidence of error while others accept the changes of doctrine as a natural progression of knowledge. The author does not take a position on the truthfulness of the doctrine - in most cases he states that it is left for a matter of faith for an individual to decide what they believe.
I personally found the entire book to be very enlightening and enjoyable, but I'm not sure how much broad appeal it would have. Most LDS readers are more interested in an exposition on doctrine and will be more interested in works by general authorities. In general I would recommend the first chapter that discusses myths and proof-texts to just about anyone. The remaining chapters were interesting to me, but may not be as worthwhile for others.
In the end, perhaps the most profound effect on me will be that I will be more hesitant in the future to assume that I understand what a passage of scripture is really supposed to mean, and more careful about interpreting things correctly. I think that is a good thing.
There is a discussion early on about several myths that exist within the LDS church, including the myth of prophetic infallibility and the myth that church doctrine has always been the same. There is also extensive discussion of proof-texting, the practice of using scripture to support a doctrine for which it was not originally intended.
After those introductory sections it proceeds to discuss the most very basic teachings of the LDS church, comparing the various teachings and doctrines as taught by leaders of the church in different eras. While you might expect these teachings to stay the same over time, they have changed in surprising ways. Critics of the church may point to these changes as evidence of error while others accept the changes of doctrine as a natural progression of knowledge. The author does not take a position on the truthfulness of the doctrine - in most cases he states that it is left for a matter of faith for an individual to decide what they believe.
I personally found the entire book to be very enlightening and enjoyable, but I'm not sure how much broad appeal it would have. Most LDS readers are more interested in an exposition on doctrine and will be more interested in works by general authorities. In general I would recommend the first chapter that discusses myths and proof-texts to just about anyone. The remaining chapters were interesting to me, but may not be as worthwhile for others.
In the end, perhaps the most profound effect on me will be that I will be more hesitant in the future to assume that I understand what a passage of scripture is really supposed to mean, and more careful about interpreting things correctly. I think that is a good thing.
November 7, 2011
In this book, Harrell looks at the historical development of key Mormon beliefs and shows how those beliefs (and surround teachings) have changed from the time of the early Israelites, through New Testament Christianity, into 19th protestant theology, incorporated into early Mormon thought, and finally how they have evolved (and sometimes contradicted themselves) over the first century of Mormonism. Utilizing contemporary Biblical criticism, Harrell shows how Joseph Smith followed the historical prophetic tradition of taking old scripture and religious narrative, and making them new and relevant to contemporary followers.
The primary short-falling of this book is that it attempts to do so much in just under 600 pages, when each chapter alone is perhaps worthy of its own volume.
Perhaps my favorite part of the volume are the expansive subject and scripture indices at the end of the book. With thousands of entries, the book is a powerful resource for quickly looking up particular beliefs and scriptural passages.
As a warning though, this book may prove challenging to readers unprepared for a historical account of Mormon theology that often differs from the traditional narratives given, as well as differs from "official" and popular Mormon (and Christian) interpretation of scripture. While Harrell does a fair amount of hand-holding in the book (which may be a bit too much for those already introduced to Biblical criticism), it may be a lot for some readers to handle. Nevertheless, Harrell's insights and observations about Mormonism's rich theological history is a wonderful and enlightening read.
The primary short-falling of this book is that it attempts to do so much in just under 600 pages, when each chapter alone is perhaps worthy of its own volume.
Perhaps my favorite part of the volume are the expansive subject and scripture indices at the end of the book. With thousands of entries, the book is a powerful resource for quickly looking up particular beliefs and scriptural passages.
As a warning though, this book may prove challenging to readers unprepared for a historical account of Mormon theology that often differs from the traditional narratives given, as well as differs from "official" and popular Mormon (and Christian) interpretation of scripture. While Harrell does a fair amount of hand-holding in the book (which may be a bit too much for those already introduced to Biblical criticism), it may be a lot for some readers to handle. Nevertheless, Harrell's insights and observations about Mormonism's rich theological history is a wonderful and enlightening read.
February 13, 2014
This book was thought provoking and intriguing. That is hard to accomplish when trying to do a systematic analysis of the doctrines of a church. The manner in which it was done, by analyzing a theme in chronological order of doctrine from old testament to modern day, was interesting to read. The research was intensive as seen by the numerous notes and large bibliography. Professor Harrell is critical in his analysis. I like other readers thought the book would be a walk through the formation of each doctrine from an LDS perspective. This book reserves nothing. If doctrines and teachings dramatically change, if scriptural backing is questionable, or if there is a conflict between teachings the author does not hold back. He tells you very directly that there is a problem. I personally read this book straight through, though it seems to be.more of a reference book. Seeing issue after issue almost made me question what the purpose of the book was, because it started to seem like an attack on the religion itself. I held to reading consistently and got to the epilogue where he explains his reason for writing the book and his thoughts on the tougher aspects of his findings, beautifully done I might add. Why he did not add these thoughts in the preface, I am not sure, but it would be helpful in clarifying his purpose before taking you down the rabbit hole. The preface is descent but no where close to the epilogue in content and feeling.
This book was well worth my time and in the end, insightful and perspective-changing.
This book was well worth my time and in the end, insightful and perspective-changing.
February 20, 2012
Very interesting book about not just the development of Mormon doctrine, but also about the history of Jewish and Christian doctrine in general. Obviously a book of this sort cannot go into great detail, but Dr. Harrell presents a reasonable overview, especially of LDS beliefs. I particularly enjoyed his numerous examples of scriptural proof-texting. I only wish his epilogue had not been so bland. It seems apparent that he was bending over backward not to appear to be trying to raise general doubt -- this after spending hundreds of pages critically questioning the roots -- if not the validity -- of particular beliefs. Overall, though, I highly recommend this useful book.
July 23, 2014
Many of his conclusions are problematic with little context, and too much space is wasted on biblical scholarship, which seems to occupy more attention than the development and evolution of Mormon theology itself. IMO, The book is also plagued by the author's agenda. One may be better off reading Dialogue articles on doctrines of interest. That said, the book's core message of variability and fallibility of revelation and prophets is important and shows how diverse Mormon thought can be. An interesting look into Joseph's mind from a more humanistic perspective.
February 5, 2015
This is simply the best recounting done to date of how Mormon doctrine has developed over time. Harrell deftly weaves history, doctrine, and theology together to produce a scholarly yet quite readable book that I consider a must-read for anyone who is serious about studying the history and doctrine of this still-young, evolving church. It may be a little challenging for readers who have only skimmed the surface of Mormon history, but it's well worth it.
February 21, 2014
Probably one of the greatest resources for understand LDS scripture and doctrine. It can be a slog (it kind of reads like a encyclopedia) and it can challenge many orthodox assumptions but it is well worth the effort.
July 28, 2012
Excellent.
December 5, 2014
Best Mormon book of all time
March 10, 2014
Important read. Not for the faint of heart.
March 28, 2016
This is one of my favorite resources for the evolution of Mormon doctrine. The footnotes are fantastic and I appreciate that it's written by a member and BYU professor but in an unbiased manner.
April 2, 2017
An encyclopedic review of most of the major doctrines in LDS theology. He follows the progression of thought from the ancient Hebrews, through the early Christian era, early 19th century American Christianity, and early Mormonism into the modern understanding. It was really fascinating to see how much somethings changed even in a short amount of time. Mormonism started out thinking, looking, and behaving like any other protestant 19th century American religion. The early revelations and the Book of Mormon are not notable for their doctrinal differences. Slowly, things evolved.
Take the nature of the Godhead. Before the early 1940's it was repeatedly taught that God was a spirit not corrupted by the base trappings of material. The Lectures on Faith describe the Father as "a personage of spirit." Parley P. Pratt wrote in 1840, "Whoever reads our books, or hears us preach, knows that we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God. That the Son has flesh and bones, and the Father is a spirit...a personage of Spirit is in the likeness of the temporal body, although not composed of such gross materials as flesh and bones." It was not until a year later do we have any records of Joseph teaching that the Father has a physical body.
The Holy Ghost was not originally considered a member of the Godhead. The Lectures on Faith states the Godhead is comprised of "two personages." The Book of Mormon and the early revelations in D&C refer to the Holy Ghost as "it" rather than "he".
Doctrines progress in a non-linear fashion. It isn't that we are learning new things unknown before, but that we learn new things that contradict previous discoveries. This can be seen in contradictions between Joseph's early 1830's translation of the Bible, and his teachings a decade later in Nauvoo. Revelation 1:6 reads "God and his Father". The Joseph Smith Translation changed it to "God, his Father." In 1844 Joseph declared the verse "altogether correct in the translation," indicating it to mean the Father of The Father.
This book covers everything: apostasy, restoration, priesthood, Satan, Godhead, preexistence, fall, atonement, gospel plan, Zion millennium, and resurrection. I learned a tremendous amount about Hebrew beliefs. Often, we impose our present understandings onto the past, rather than let the Old Testament speak for itself. For example, there is very little after life in the Old Testament. All prophecies and promises were generally temporal in nature. In fact, Ecclesiastes 9 explicitly states that this life is all there is.
One criticism is that Harrell covers too many topics, and doesn't treat with enough depth the complex and nuance history. Each topic, alone, would deserve a book-length treatment. Nevertheless, it does excel at its main thesis: that there are varying and contradicting doctrinal voices in all revealed scripture and prophetic teachings.
Theology is a meeting between man and God and takes work on our mortal part. The nature of the Godhead, in Mormonism, remained unsettled until the scholar, Elder Talmage, worked out the doctrine in his Jesus the Christ. His solution worked. The first presidency and the quorum of the twelve formalized his take in an official statement the year after JtC was published.
Take the nature of the Godhead. Before the early 1940's it was repeatedly taught that God was a spirit not corrupted by the base trappings of material. The Lectures on Faith describe the Father as "a personage of spirit." Parley P. Pratt wrote in 1840, "Whoever reads our books, or hears us preach, knows that we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God. That the Son has flesh and bones, and the Father is a spirit...a personage of Spirit is in the likeness of the temporal body, although not composed of such gross materials as flesh and bones." It was not until a year later do we have any records of Joseph teaching that the Father has a physical body.
The Holy Ghost was not originally considered a member of the Godhead. The Lectures on Faith states the Godhead is comprised of "two personages." The Book of Mormon and the early revelations in D&C refer to the Holy Ghost as "it" rather than "he".
Doctrines progress in a non-linear fashion. It isn't that we are learning new things unknown before, but that we learn new things that contradict previous discoveries. This can be seen in contradictions between Joseph's early 1830's translation of the Bible, and his teachings a decade later in Nauvoo. Revelation 1:6 reads "God and his Father". The Joseph Smith Translation changed it to "God, his Father." In 1844 Joseph declared the verse "altogether correct in the translation," indicating it to mean the Father of The Father.
This book covers everything: apostasy, restoration, priesthood, Satan, Godhead, preexistence, fall, atonement, gospel plan, Zion millennium, and resurrection. I learned a tremendous amount about Hebrew beliefs. Often, we impose our present understandings onto the past, rather than let the Old Testament speak for itself. For example, there is very little after life in the Old Testament. All prophecies and promises were generally temporal in nature. In fact, Ecclesiastes 9 explicitly states that this life is all there is.
One criticism is that Harrell covers too many topics, and doesn't treat with enough depth the complex and nuance history. Each topic, alone, would deserve a book-length treatment. Nevertheless, it does excel at its main thesis: that there are varying and contradicting doctrinal voices in all revealed scripture and prophetic teachings.
Theology is a meeting between man and God and takes work on our mortal part. The nature of the Godhead, in Mormonism, remained unsettled until the scholar, Elder Talmage, worked out the doctrine in his Jesus the Christ. His solution worked. The first presidency and the quorum of the twelve formalized his take in an official statement the year after JtC was published.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews