First of all, readers should read what Harold Bloom has to say in his book "The American Religion" which is available on Amazon. He quotes and discusses McMurrin's ideas.
It is true that LDS theology has two "branches" but to name them Technical and Prophetic is special pleading. "Technical" fits the second, prophetic, branch better in that it captures its similarity to conservative Christian churches - for example an unthinking interpretation of scriptures similar to those churches and following pastoral dictates without thinking. Call the first branch "Philosophical" if you like - it does approach the theology philosophically. Call the second branch "Conservative". It is questionable whether the bulk of the 12 million Church members can be assigned to the conservative second branch, unless that just means the unthinking sheep. I suspect that a fair number of Mormons want to think for themselves. Remember that Joseph Smith invited people of other religions to Nauvoo, including Muslims! Both branches look to the scriptures. They just interpret them differently. It is not really true that the Conservative branch focuses more on the scriptures. In fact there are older scriptures and thoughts of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young which the the Conservative branch ignores, avoids and minimizes in their attempt to be more like the American conservative Christian churches. LDS theology that is different from those churches, and is distinctively Mormon, is ignored.
As for miracles, McMurrin is not saying there are no miracles. He is saying that from God's perspective there are no miracles, which is a different thing altogether. That is really just saying that God knows what he is doing even if we don't. Joseph Smith really got into early Christianity and all its philosophical debates, and often his doctrines explicitly rejected orthodox Christianity's interpretations. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic for believing too much in good works rather than salvation by grace only, and any serious student of early Christianity knows his name. Most educated Roman Catholics would. LDS Authorities don't refer to him so, yes, most Mormons probably don't know the name. They just follow a Church that follows Pelagius' leanings, just as they follow the same leanings in the Epistle of James which many orthodox Christians (e.g. Martin Luther) dislike or ignore. One can say that McMurrin is using Joseph Smith filtered through B.H. Roberts, but why not say instead that McMurrin and Roberts are seeing Joseph Smith in a similar way?
I for one do not agree that McMurrin garbles the message. Scholars of early Christianity are all aware of the influence of Greek philosophy on the formation of orthodox Christianity. After all Jesus preached in a Hellenic Jewish influenced environment, and many if not most of the early Christian converts were such people. So why wouldn't Joseph Smith have taken that milieu and philosophy into account as well? I think it is the Philosophical branch that is addressing historical reality and the Conservative branch that is avoiding it.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Customer reviews
4.3 out of 5
We don’t use a simple average to calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star. Our system gives more weight to certain factors—including how recent the review is and if the reviewer bought it on Amazon. Learn more
11 global ratings
