Introduction and Welcome

Part 1 of 2 · Ep. 317

Charles Harrell [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org hello and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. As always, I'm your host, John Dehlin, and I am excited once again to have with us a special guest. His name is Charles Harrell. Hi, Charles.

Charles Harrell [00:00:40] Hello, John.

John Dehlin [00:00:41] Is that how you pronounce it?

Charles Harrell [00:00:42] Harold Harrell, that's right.

John Dehlin [00:00:45] And Charles has come out with a new book. How new is it?

Charles Harrell [00:00:50] It's been out for about five months.

John Dehlin [00:00:52] Five months. Relatively new book again by Greg Coford Books. So this is the second in our series of spotlighting some books from Greg Coford Books. And this is a fascinating book. The book is called this Is My Doctrine, the Development of Mormon Theology. And you know, the book in and of itself is a pretty, is a pretty bold and important book because basically what it does is it traces the history of various Mormon doctrines, LDS doctrines, you know, God, the Godhead, Holy Ghost, Satan, the pre existence creation, the atonement, salvation for the dead, the priesthood, you know, basically anything you would, almost anything you'd find in the gospel doctrine manual or the, what's the name of the manual that we have these days? Gospel Principles.

Charles Harrell [00:01:44] Right, Gospel principles, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:01:46] And basically it traces the evolution or you might say the changes of those doctrines and teachings. So that in and of itself would be interesting for me. What's also very interesting is that, is that Charles is a, he's a professor and he's a professor at byu. And most importantly, he's again, what I would call a thoughtful believer. And that's not to say that all believers aren't thoughtful, but I consider sort of in this really special elite group of Mormons that I meet, and I think it's a small percentage who are probably aware of the history and the doctrine and the cultural issues more than I am. And yet they consider themselves believers and in many ways, or in some cases in every way, literal believers. And so we've had, you know, Richard Bushman on, we've had Terrell Givens on, we've had Brant Gardner on, we've had Dan Peterson on. And I'm just delighted to add Charles Harrell to the mix. So, Charles, thanks for joining us today.

Charles Harrell [00:02:53] It's my pleasure.

John Dehlin [00:02:55] I'll read your bio really quickly. You are, you have a PhD in manufacturing engineering, which makes perfect sense for a book on doctrine and theology. That was a joke.

Charles Harrell [00:03:06] Well, it's all fabricated.

John Dehlin [00:03:10] You are an associate professor in Brigham Young University's School of Technology, where you are the graduate coordinator for the manufacturing systems program. You've done all sorts of cool stuff, including humanitarian work in Ghana. You're the founder and director of Pro Model Corporation, which is a provider of simulation software. And I come out of the software business, so I know a little bit about that as well. And you are published. You've published articles on Mormon theology in BYU Studies, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and studies in the scriptures. Wow. If you wrote in the Encyclopedia Mormonism, you've been in Mormon studies a long time.

Charles Harrell [00:03:57] Quite a few years, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:03:58] How many years have you been involved in Mormon studies? Wow.

Charles Harrell [00:04:04] At least 30, 35 years.

John Dehlin [00:04:08] Wow. Wow. You go way back. You must have known, like, Leonard Arrington.

Charles Harrell [00:04:13] I knew of him.

John Dehlin [00:04:14] Okay. All right. It says here you've taught Seminary Institute for many years. And welcome to Mormon Stories. We're very happy to have you here.

Charles Harrell [00:04:23] Thank you.

John Dehlin [00:04:24] So do you. Have you listened to Mormon Stories before?

Charles Harrell [00:04:29] Yeah, I've listened to several of the sessions.

John Dehlin [00:04:31] Okay, cool. Well, that's good to know. And, you know, maybe we'll tie into some of our past discussions as we go through the book. But let's begin as we always do. Do you want me to call you Charles? Is that what you'd like, Charles?

Charles Harrell [00:04:45] Charlie.

John Dehlin [00:04:46] Okay.

Charles Harrell [00:04:46] Typically I go by Charlie.

John Dehlin [00:04:47] Okay, Charlie, I'll call you Charlie. Let's start just with a little bit of your history, just as it relates to your Mormon experience and kind of what got you interested in Mormon studies and specifically writing this beautiful book on doctrine and theology. And let me just. Before you answer that, I just want to remind my listeners that Greg Cofert Books is offering a sale right now, 25% off the purchase of this book if you. If you buy it at Greg Cofer Books Online. That's Kofford. If you type in M stories all in caps, you can get a discount and a cut of that will go to Support Mormon Stories and the Open Stories foundation as well. So it's a way you can help us get a great book. Support Charlie for writing a great book, support Greg Coford for publishing great books. And so we hope you guys will consider it. Now, now I'm done with the. With all the business T. Tell us about your story.

Harrell's Background in Mormon Studies

Charles Harrell [00:05:49] Okay, well, you mentioned a little bit about my background while I've been in Mormon studies. It's been More as a hobbyist than as a profession. Obviously, I've been in engineering, in software development. I've been kind of a little bit of an entrepreneur, and then, of course, spent the last roughly 30 years teaching at BYU. The story behind the book is that I became fascinated with doctrinal development. I grew up in the Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie era, where I was under the impression that all doctrine was consistent, that there was no contradiction in the Scriptures and in doctrine. And the more I got into doctrine, I discovered, as many people recognized, that it's not always consistent. And as I started putting the pieces of the puzzle together, I found that there were pieces that didn't fit and that there were pieces that presented a different picture than what was on the box. That is what the church was teaching. So that led me to start looking at doctrine chronologically. And that, to me, was a big aha moment to realize that it all starts to make sense when you look at doctrine historically and developmentally, rather than just trying to fit it all together and make it all consistent with each other. So one of the doctrines that I got fascinated with early on was the doctrine of pre existence. And I wrote an article that was published in BYU Studies back in 1988, and it traced the development of that doctrine just between the years of 1830 and 1844. And I discovered that during that period, the doctrine went through about four or five stages of development. And each of the new progressive stages wasn't always consistent with the prior stage, and neither did it always have good biblical support for it. But one thing I did discover is that it had, almost all of them had precedence in the religious environs of Joseph Smith. So I turn to that period of religious discourse and sermons that were going on at the time between universalists, between evangelicals, Calvinists, and started to realize that, wow, this all sounds very familiar. And in fact, a lot of the religious discourse that you read in the Book of Mormon seems to mirror a lot of the religious discourse of the time of Joseph Smith, right? So after tackling the doctrine of pre existence, I thought, you know, I wonder how many other doctrines have this kind of development? And started tracing the doctrine. And I thought, well, it'd be interesting not only to look at how it developed within Mormonism, but then to go back and look at how was it understand biblically? How did Old Testament prophets, how did they write about these things? How did they perceive them? How did New Testament writers describe these same doctrines or how did they address them? So I thought it would be Interesting to provide that kind of backdrop to the way that we understand them in Mormonism, especially since we draw upon biblical texts to, to support many of the doctrines that we teach.

John Dehlin [00:09:53] Right.

Charles Harrell [00:09:55] So that's sort of how I got into the book and it developed from there.

John Dehlin [00:10:01] So starting with your work on the pre existence, you realized that there was value in studying the evolution of doctrines chronologically, is that right?

Charles Harrell [00:10:13] That's correct, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:10:14] Okay. And so that's what you've done with the book is a chronological look at, at how the doctrines and theologies have evolved over time. So let's begin just at a really super high level. What would you call. I mean, this is a question in and of itself that we can probably end with as much as begin with. But what is doctrine and what is theology and how should we think about it?

Defining Mormon Doctrine and Theology

Charles Harrell [00:10:44] That is a good question because especially when we get into Mormon doctrine, because it is often said in the Church that we have no theology.

John Dehlin [00:10:58] Who says that?

Charles Harrell [00:10:59] Well, that particular phrase is attributed to Hugh Nibley and I've heard several people, colleagues here at BYU often recite that. But Jim Faulkner also talks about theology in several of his articles, and one of them, in the first chapter that I refer to, he talks about the same idea that Mormonism doesn't have what you would call a systematic theology, meaning that we don't have a single source where a member can go to that's officially endorsed by the Church that says, here are all of the doctrines of Mormonism outlined and explained in detail.

John Dehlin [00:11:46] Now who does have that? Is there an example of that?

Charles Harrell [00:11:51] That's a good question. I'm not sure that other religions have an enormous collection of doctrine that they officially endorse. There are of course the confessions that have been published in creeds that go through, oh, a dozen or so doctrines and develop them fairly superficially.

John Dehlin [00:12:20] Right.

Charles Harrell [00:12:22] So in Mormonism though, the doctrine. In fact, I have a statement here from the Church Handbook of Instructions that states the doctrines of the Church are found in the Scriptures and the teachings of Latter day prophets and apostles. Yeah, So I think that's probably the best definition of at least what the source of doctrine is and what would be considered official doctrine or doctrine that is at least accepted by the Church.

John Dehlin [00:12:52] Yeah, we'll talk about this later. But it sounds like what you're saying is doctrine can be found in Scriptures and in prophetic utterances, but not all prophetic utterances are doctrine. And given that, given the Article of Faith, which gives us a little bit of a disclaimer about the Bible, you could Even say, not everything found in the Bible is necessarily doctrine, and certainly not every interpretation made based on the Bible or Scriptures is doctrine. Right?

Charles Harrell [00:13:20] That's correct. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:22] So it's fluid. I mean, just before we even dig into how fluid it is in specific, that just leaves so much leeway, doesn't it?

Charles Harrell [00:13:32] Well, it does. Especially when you say that not everything that prophets teach or perhaps that's even found in the Scriptures is doctrine. Then you have to ask, well, how do I know what correct doctrine is?

John Dehlin [00:13:51] Yeah, so this is one of the questions we'll save to the end. Let's dive in if it's okay, and let's just talk about. Let's pick three or four to start with. And you can pick, let's pick the ones that would be sort of most eye opening to members. Not, not for any other reason than just to kind of get people's attention so that we can see, wow, you know, things, things really do evolve and change so that we can then have a robust discussion about what this might all mean or not mean. What would be the ones you would start with?

Charles Harrell [00:14:31] Probably as the book itself kind of starts out with the doctrines of the apostasy and restoration of the gospel.

John Dehlin [00:14:40] Okay, apostasy and restoration. All right, let's start there. So I'll give you what I understand the doctrine to be, and then we can talk about how the history might, might be colorful or interesting. Is that okay?

Charles Harrell [00:14:59] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:15:00] So let me think. So the doctrine is that Adam got the priesthood. Adam probably, maybe even baptized people. There's this tendency to want to take whatever Christ did and whatever we're doing now and sort of push that all the way back to Adam. So, so Adam had the priesthood that was passed down. You know, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were probably held in some way by the ancient Israelites. And you know, there's the lesser law, which is the Mosaic law that carried through to Christ. But then Christ came and gave a new law and established a church with authority and apostles and, and the like and started setting up a structure. You know, what my friends were taught at BYU and what we were taught at BYU was that Christ probably married, got married, he might have even married multiple women, that he set up the church and that the church as much as possible looked like it does now. But then within a generation or two, even though he handed the succession keys to Peter, that Peter was killed. And within 50 to 100 years, the church fell into apostasy and the great and abominable. You know, the Catholic Church Sort of took it over and for many years ruled and reigned, but brought all sorts of corruption into the doctrine and into the practice. And it wasn't until 1830 that the priesthood was restored. Basically, all the ordinances between Jesus and Joseph Smith would be invalid. You know, the baptismal ordinances and all the authority stuff. And then the priesthood was given to Joseph, first the Aaronic, then the Melchizedek, and then he set up a restoration of all things which. Which included deacons and pastors and evangelists and bishops and a church organization and the 12 apostles. And you could even say that the polygamy was part of the restoration of all things. And that's it. The truth was restored. And we're just basically setting back up the church that Jesus set up at the beginning. So that's my understanding. Tell me if I'm off on what the traditional understanding has been, say, in the 20th century or late 20th century.

Charles Harrell [00:17:48] There's probably a few other details that could fit in between the cracks of what you presented there, but I think you basically got the essence of it.

John Dehlin [00:17:56] Okay, good. So let's dive in. Did it not start this way? The teachings.

Charles Harrell [00:18:04] If you go back to Old Testament times, I guess the question you'd have to raise is what evidence do we have or what does the Old Testament tell us about beliefs of ancient Israelites? And there is no clear message that you get from the Old Testament about the Gospel. There are no ordinances presented that we practice today like baptism or confirmation or any temple ordinances. Now you do get some apologists or some Latter Day Saint writers, commentators that talk about the. I think it's the laver that was used in the temple and Solomon's Temple at the time of Moses or later, that that was used for baptisms. But in fact, if you read that carefully, biblical scholars would say that that was not used for baptism, that was for priests to wash and cleanse themselves prior to officiating in the temple. So even though we have the narrative, and this is probably a good place to differentiate here between doctrine and narrative, while there may have been an apostasy and a restoration, the narratives that we have developed to describe that and to define that and characterize it, those narratives have changed over time. And so we tend to adapt the narrative or to adjust the narrative based on our understanding, based on scholarship, based on what's being emphasized in the church. For example, when Joseph Smith first organized the church, or going back even a little before then, when he published the Book of Mormon, in the Book of Mormon, it doesn't talk about a church being restored. It doesn't talk about priesthood being restored. It talks about the plain truths of the Bible and the basic doctrines of the Gospel. The true church was defined as that church which was built on or based on the Gospel of Christ. So it wasn't a church that was based on an organization on priesthood, on apostles and prophets. It was the church that was based on the Gospel of Christ. So you find those in the early Revelations and the Doctrine Covenants in the Book of Mormon. So that was the narrative at the time.

The Church's Claims to Exclusivity and Truth

John Dehlin [00:20:50] Can I just ask you a question about that? Sure. So are you saying that when in Doctrine and Covenants, Section one, where it says the only true and living church, there's another interpretation than a legal corporate entity that there's just this. It's almost. Could be the word could be used interchangeably with the word gospel. And it's more talking about some plain and precious truths like love and faith and patience and baptism. And it's not necessarily talking about some corporate structure that one might become a member and legally affiliated with. Am I hearing you right or not?

Charles Harrell [00:21:37] I would say there's probably an element of that. Now, section one was revealed in 1833. So that was kind of when they were compiling the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. That was sort of the preface to the Book of Commandments at the time. So by that time, there started to become this idea of authority of priesthood. Obviously, the church had been organized by that time, but throughout the Doctrine and Covenants, usually when it talks about the church in. It's talking more about the collection of saints, the group of saints, not about some organization per se.

John Dehlin [00:22:23] Got it. A body of people.

Charles Harrell [00:22:25] Yeah, body of people, body of believers. The saints.

John Dehlin [00:22:28] Huh.

Charles Harrell [00:22:29] Okay, so where the prophet says, wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed to all of his word sort of things, then that's referring to the saints.

John Dehlin [00:22:42] Interesting. So the church is us, not the church is the leaders of the church or the corporate structure.

Charles Harrell [00:22:49] Exactly.

John Dehlin [00:22:50] Okay. All right, interesting. And so was that pretty generally understood then, that the church meant the. Do we have references or what do we have that tells us that we meant something different back then when we said church?

Charles Harrell [00:23:11] Well, you can even go back to. We don't have any commentators that are looking at these things and saying, here's what was meant by this and that. But if you read references to the church in their context, like even in the Book of Mormon where it talks about there are saved two churches only, the Church of the devil and the Church of the Lamb of God. They're not talking about churches in the sense that we think about them today, denominations, but they were talking about movements

John Dehlin [00:23:44] or

Charles Harrell [00:23:47] bodies of people who shared a particular kind of belief. And so that's the way church was used in the earliest days of the church.

John Dehlin [00:24:00] Yeah, yeah. When we think of that scripture, we focus on the church of the devil, and, oh, does that mean the Catholic Church? But we never. I guess I've never really stopped to consider the fact that it's saying there's only two. I mean, I guess, you know what. What I understood that to mean growing up was our church was the true one, and then all other churches are part of the great church of Satan. And that's. That's one interpretation, but I guess your interpretation seems to be less judgmental, less exclusionary.

Charles Harrell [00:24:33] That's right. Basically, what he was saying, and LDS commentators have made the same observation. It's pretty obvious from the context that what Nephi is talking about are two camps of people, not two denominations.

John Dehlin [00:24:51] Got it, Got it. Okay, well, that's interesting. So how did we get, from that understanding of where we are now,

Charles Harrell [00:25:01] this sort of semantic drift that over time, words take on new meaning, and so the meaning that we attribute to church today or attach to church, we kind of impose that back on prior scripture and prior comments, teachings of the prophets, and we reach conclusions that are different than the kinds of conclusions that were reached by the original audience of those sermons.

John Dehlin [00:25:31] Yeah. So that presentism thing that maybe Brent talked about a little bit, is that what you mean?

Charles Harrell [00:25:38] Yeah, exactly.

John Dehlin [00:25:40] Okay. And to what extent does your book go into the chronicling the change in the understanding of what that word means, or does it not go into that much detail?

Charles Harrell [00:25:52] It doesn't go into that much detail so much as just talk about how these narratives again changed over time. Like initially, as I pointed out, members looked at the restoration, and it was presented this way, that the restoration was a restoration of the basic gospel truths, and the church was considered the true church if it was based on Christ's gospel. Now, gradually, as authority came into the church, by around 1835, at least suddenly, the apostasy was defined not as a loss of gospel truths and the restoration, not a restoration of those truths, but in addition to that, a loss of and restoration of priesthood authority. Then later on, around 1842, you have the temple ordinances that began the endowment and celestial marriage and so on, and all of a sudden that became added to the narrative. So now it wasn't an apostasy from just the basic gospel truths, but of these key ordinances. And so we read in Isaiah 24 about they have changed the ordinance. And that gets interpreted again in our present context of how we understand ordinance, where in fact, ordinance was always understood anciently and even through the first part of the church up until around 1832, at least, as just referring to commandments, to laws, to the statutes. In fact, the NRSV interprets that passage. They haven't changed the ordinance, they've changed the statutes. And so again, we grab. We pick up on these words, these turns of phrase, and we say, oh, Isaiah was talking about the great apostasy. Well, he was talking about an apostasy, but not an apostasy in our time and in terms that we would use to define it. But he was talking about. Seems to be talking about the apostasy of ancient Israel. And you notice the past tense. They have changed the ordinance. So a lot of these passages we take, we construct a narrative based on our understanding at the time, and that evolves over time. It is interesting that currently several LDS scholars who are researching the apostasy, they're framing it in different terms. They're not talking so much about the apostasy as being a night of darkness. We look at the Dark Ages and we think, oh, that's when the lights went out, when the apostasy occurred, and there was just corruption and all kinds of false teachings going around. And historians are saying that, no, we've really been looking at the Dark Ages wrong. It wasn't that dark, and the Enlightenment wasn't necessarily that light. Current Mormon scholars are starting to look at that and say, well, maybe the apostasy was just a loss of authority and a restoration of authority. So you can see a shift in the way this narrative is being shaped. And it wouldn't surprise me to see that sort of explanation for the apostasy and restoration become more prominent. Although even now in conference talks, you still hear people talk about the loss of all these truths, coups and so on that occurred because of the apostasy.

John Dehlin [00:29:50] I see. Okay, so I'm just going to summarize and then I'm going to ask you a question. So you're saying originally it was the focus on the teachings and on the body of the membership, you know, getting the truths back and, you know, getting back together a group of people that celebrate those truths.

Charles Harrell [00:30:13] Right, right.

John Dehlin [00:30:15] And then it moved to more of increasing emphasis on keys and authority, is that right?

Charles Harrell [00:30:21] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:30:22] And then it even moved further to ordinances being required.

Charles Harrell [00:30:28] Right, right. These higher Ordinances that the world has completely lost knowledge of.

John Dehlin [00:30:35] Now, these changes can be viewed well in several ways. One way that these changes can be viewed is the way that I think we're kind of taught to view them, which is that, oh, we have continuing revelation. And, you know, each year that the church progresses represents a year of a greater understanding, right?

Charles Harrell [00:30:57] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:30:58] Of an improvement, of an evolution. And so you don't advance to another year in the LDS church with a distorted or a lesser understanding. Each year that goes by, it improves. I guess the slight implication I'm hearing is that maybe Joseph got it right at first and we kind of had it right at first and then it kind of unraveled. Is that unfair for me to say that? That's the implication I'm hearing.

Charles Harrell [00:31:39] Yeah. I'm not so sure that he had it right at first and then it unraveled. Now we're making a judgment about what version of the truth was the correct one. And it may be that he started out with a version or with a narrative that changed over time. And you could interpret that as being a change for the better, a more enlightened change, but in some cases it's just plain. It's just simply a change,

John Dehlin [00:32:14] one without a value assessment. Right?

Charles Harrell [00:32:17] Yeah, yeah. It'd be hard to say that, oh, this is the correct way to understand it now and not the other way.

John Dehlin [00:32:22] Yeah. Because what I. Okay, so I'm just going to be honest with you about my preference. Right. And we could talk about these things later. But one of the things that's always tripped me up is this belief, first of all, that all other ordinances and other Christian churches or even non Christian churches are invalid, that God, you know, that all these baptisms are taking place, billions of baptisms, and yet, you know, God says, nope, they don't have the franchise, they don't have the key, they don't have the right authority. So all that doesn't get you into heaven. That's part one. So it's very judgmental, it's very invalidating, it's not very inclusive. And then it requires this teaching of ordinance work for the dead, where instead of like feeding the hungry and educating the poor and the uneducated and curing diseases, we're spending time and money, like, doing these ordinances for people, even though they may not ever accept them or if they do, like I just keep asking, why couldn't God have come up with a better way so that we didn't need to do this? And so when you say, oh, well, when Joseph first came out with, you know, what he meant by the restoration ordinances weren't important. I'm like, yes, that means that, like, maybe all our ordinances are valid, or maybe ordinances aren't that crucial at all, other than, like, the extent to which they show to God our commitment to him, or they transform us spiritually. But they don't necessarily have to be this, you know, certification that allows us to pass through the pearly gates in heaven. And so I'm feeling a desire to interpret what you're saying as being very inclusive and as being very expansive. And yet at the same time, I'm hearing people. If you were to say, well, Joseph didn't care about whether Joseph didn't believe that ordinances were required to get into heaven, Joseph didn't really say, want think it was necessary for proxy baptisms to happen, that would probably be inaccurate. Right. So help me think through this a little bit, if you can.

Charles Harrell [00:34:37] Well, your comment helps me understand your earlier remark about Joseph Smith getting it right and then got fouled up afterwards.

John Dehlin [00:34:47] Yeah. Yeah.

Charles Harrell [00:34:49] So, yeah, I guess a lot of it depends on your perspective of what teaching and what story, what narrative you prefer over another one. That's one of the nice things about the church and our doctrines is that because there have been changes over time, it has allowed. And obviously there are changes even within the same period of time, but it allows members to kind of pick and choose which ones suit their personal preferences more than others. And the other thing it does is it allows the church to develop. So over time, the church itself can look back at teachings and. And ground new teachings that maybe are more attuned to modern sensibilities or to modern scientific findings. They can say that, oh, that's what really our scriptures do teach. And these ideas are supported in the scriptures, even though that might not be what the current narrative is, they can shape the narrative and still find scriptural justification for it.

John Dehlin [00:36:02] Well, it sounds like what your answer is saying is that flexibility is good. It allows me to stay in the church even if my beliefs aren't traditional. It allows the church to change over time as it becomes wiser or as dynamics change. It just allows a lot less rigidity and a lot more flexibility so that we can adapt and evolve and allow we don't entertain or possess a broader membership base. Is that kind of what you're saying?

Charles Harrell [00:36:39] Yeah, I think that's a good way to think about it. Nothing is completely cast in concrete

John Dehlin [00:36:50] this.

Charles Harrell [00:36:53] I have a statement here from Jim Faulkner in the epilogue where he says, that since Latter Day Saints insist on continuing revelation, they cannot have a dogmatic theology that is any more than provisional and heuristic for a theology claiming to be more than that could always be trumped by new revelation. So all of the doctrines and the teachings that we have really are still provisional, even though we accept them, they seem right to maybe our understanding at the time. They don't necessarily suit everybody, and you point out an example of that. But over time, everybody needs to be open to the idea that doctrines can change.

John Dehlin [00:37:42] Right. Okay, so I've got a response to that. But first, do you have a response to the question about ordinances and their importance, or is that something that you prefer to just kind of leave open and say there's going to be varying views on that?

Charles Harrell [00:37:58] Yeah, I think there are varying views. I think the position of the Church at this point is that obviously that these ordinances are essential and that they must be performed by the authority, and that there is a very literal understanding of John3.5 that except a man be born again or be baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. So that's a pretty hard and fast doctrine. And Christianity has that same issue where they accept, they embrace the New Testament teachings that everybody needs to come to Christ to be saved. And now you look at the majority of the world who aren't Christians, and you have to ask, well, what does that mean for them over all these years? Of course, we come back and say, well, they'll get it in the spirit world. For some people, that's just not very satisfactory.

John Dehlin [00:39:05] Right, right. But it sounds like you're also saying that this may be the hard and fast doctrine for now, but it could change in 100 years.

Charles Harrell [00:39:16] That's entirely possible.

John Dehlin [00:39:18] Yeah. Yeah. And so you could try and resolve my concerns about how sometimes elitists are exclusive. This one interpretation that I kind of outlined is about ordinances. But the truth is, in your philosophy, there's no need to resolve that because I might be right. I could be wrong. The Church has a position now, but it could change. And so what's better to do instead of find the answer is to settle back into an acceptance of flexibility. And that will allow us to believe and feel what we want to now, but also allow the Church to change if it feels like it needs to. Is that right?

Charles Harrell [00:40:04] I think that is a legitimate posture that a member could take.

John Dehlin [00:40:09] And you say it's legitimate. Okay, so I want to save our more subsumative discussions at the end just about the implications of all this, but I just have to jump in now because you know what you're saying. Well, it seems like one of the strengths of Mormonism is that these prophets, seers and revelators claim to speak with God and to know God's will. And they stand up at the pulpit of General Conference and they say, this is the doctrine, this is the truth. And the members, and they write it in manuals, and the members write it down and they teach it. And there's just security in that. It's not ambivalent, it's not confusing, it's simple, it's plain, it's precious, and it's clear. And you don't have to think about it. You just close your eyes, grab onto the iron rod, and you just follow the rod, you know, hold to the rod, believe the brethren, and you die and you go to the celestial kingdom. Like, it's really simple. And so it seems like that's what makes our church strong, is such, you know, we don't have the, like the rabbis debating or the Catholic priests disagreeing with each other, you know, and this, you know, this diocese disagreeing with that diocese. We've got the plain and precious, unadulterated, pure truth flowing from the prophet's mouth and the Scriptures and General Conference to us, and we just need to believe it, obey it, and follow it. And that's how I was raised, and it sounds like that's how you were raised. And so when we switch to this model, that's more nuanced, let's just say there are two things that happens. It seems like it weakens the members, the nutrients or the confidence or the simplicity or the power that a member gets. Because now they've got to think about it, and now they've got to. Now they might have a different feeling than somebody else. And all of a sudden it's confusing and it's difficult and it's a struggle. So that's one problem. And then the second problem, it immediately begs the question, why do we need leaders like these prophets, seers and revelators? If they could be wrong 100 years ago, chances are, with their tumults, now, probably isn't complete either. So we should just take what they say with a grain of salt. Look at, you know, Thomas s. Monson, like Dr. Phil or Oprah, he's going to say, stay out of debt and don't look at pornography. But Dr. Phil might say that, too. And, you know, doesn't it discount the leadership and their importance? And doesn't it also extract and remove some of the vitality that has been Mormonism's hallmark.

Prophetic Fallibility and Evolving Revelation

Charles Harrell [00:43:12] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:43:14] Oh, my gosh, I never expected that answer. Are you serious?

Charles Harrell [00:43:19] Well, obviously, yeah. If we took that approach, if we took that attitude towards the prophets, that their words are no better than any other person, then I think we would get the same exact attitude that you have expressed there. An attitude of complacency, of, gosh, this isn't as great as I thought it was. Why should I make such a strong commitment to this religion if it is what it is? So that is a risk that you always run into. I think there's obviously the pendulum here, that you could go to one extreme or the other, and they're both probably unhealthy and imbalanced positions. But I think a problem as a church that we've had is going the one way to the extreme where we look at prophets as infallible. And of course we know that prophets aren't infallible. That's never been a doctrine of the church, but yet there's that tendency to look at them that way. And when the prophet speaks, then all the questions are done, the discussion's over. But I think what we need to do is come to a more realistic view of prophets. This is not viewing prophets any differently than the way Isaiah was a prophet, Moses, Paul, Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson. Today, I don't think they want to be set up on a pest pedestal as somebody who is perfect, infallible, and that everything that comes from their mouth is exactly what the Lord would have them say and that they could answer any question posed to them about, say, doctrine with absolute certainty, because we just don't know a lot of things. So I think a more healthy approach is to recognize that for whatever reason, we're not given the full answer to everything. Paul included himself when he said, we look through a glass darkly and we walk by faith, not by sight. And so I think we have to be a little more content to live with uncertainty, to live with ambiguity in our lives. And that's a difficult thing for people to do.

John Dehlin [00:45:57] Yeah, it is difficult. And it feels like we can learn from what the reorganized Church of the community of Christ has done, and we can learn from what traditional Protestant Christianity has done. You know, look at Lutherans and Methodists and Presbyterians. And this is my great fear or dilemma about the church is that we can't ignore science, we can't ignore history, we can't ignore reality. So if we're going to be intellectually honest, we have to arrive at the conclusions you have, which is that prophets and apostles and even scriptures are fallible and even if we take them at their word, they're fallible. Right. But at the same time, if we adopt liberal sensibilities like everything's nuanced and you've got a struggle and truth is somewhat relative or at least our understandings of truth are so subjective that, you know, we have to allow for uncertainty and all these other things, don't we get a weakened church, a weakened institution? Don't we get the same outcome that these other Protestant churches have also received, which is dwindling members, dwindling revenue, dwindling influence? Isn't that the risk?

Charles Harrell [00:47:27] That is the risk. I think to my way of thinking, that is probably the greatest crisis facing organized religion today is.

John Dehlin [00:47:39] Yeah. Not just Mormonism.

Charles Harrell [00:47:40] Yeah. In the wake of scientific discoveries and what we know today, history, how do we deal with these things? I've read several books about or written by, as you mentioned, non LDS scholars, Christian scholars who look at the Bible and they see that a lot of the teachings of the Bible are teachings that were current at the time. They weren't original with the Israelites. And so how do you explain this non originality of it? We've thought that, oh, these teachings, the Ten Commandments and so on, they were revealed from God. Now that isn't to say that they were simply borrowed. These scholars just recognized that, hey, these teachings were culturally there. And for whatever reason, God chose to give those same commandments in essentially the same way to the House of Israel. Why would he do that if they were more culturally shaped and conditioned than what we have always thought them to be? But anyway, these Christian scholars try to deal with that issue and come up with an explanation of how do you reconcile this traditional view that we have had of God and of Scripture as being essentially inerrant and being the pure word of God, and yet we see that it has human fingerprints all over it. Once you recognize that, then what do you say? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and say that, well, it's all human derived? Or do you try to understand how is it that God works with his people, deals with his people in such a human way, and that's what a lot of Christian scholars are coming to the conclusion that God works in a way that is different from the stereotypical way that we have always imagined him to work.

John Dehlin [00:50:01] Yeah. And the term that in my circles, I'm familiar with about this subject you've gone to, and we're kind of pulling ahead the essence of what we were going to talk about at the end. But it's okay, let's just get right to it, you know. Have you ever heard the term big G God versus little G God? Is that a term you're familiar with? Yeah. So the big G God is the God that maybe comes out of more traditional Christianity, which is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnipowerful, a God that can do anything. And the problem of theosis that God is good and that God is all powerful, yet there's so much evil in the world is the dynamic that's always pulling at this big G God because, wow, if God is good and all powerful, why is there genocide and you know, the raping of children in this world that he created? And so what, what these liberal sensibilities seem to lead to is this notion of a little G God, which is to say, well, maybe God's, you know, more like us. Maybe God limited in his power and influence. Maybe there are certain laws he can't violate. Maybe he can just do the best that he can. Maybe he's even learning as he goes, you know, who knows? But it takes away a bit of the all powerful and it puts limits, natural limits or celestial law limits or some type of limit that then allows to explain for the messiness of this earth life, not just the pain and the suffering, but also the doctrinal theological, religious confusion that we have. You sort of say, well, God's just doing the best he can to communicate with us, but he's limited and we're limited. And so we've got this big mess and we're all trying to figure it out and that becomes the little G God. But I heard one guy say once, the little G God is a God he doesn't really have an interest in because the God isn't even powerful enough to fix some of the big problems. Then how is it a God worth worshiping at all? Have you thought about that at all?

Charles Harrell [00:52:26] Yes, and I think that applies not only to God, but as you kind of alluded to earlier, even to the church, to the prophet. What good is a prophet or what kind of a prophet is, is this? If he can't give prophecies like we understand that prophets of old gave? And if he can't declare and proclaim doctrine the way that prophets in past times, say, Joseph Smith did, what good is the prophet? What good is a God who isn't intimately involved and who has power and takes control of things?

John Dehlin [00:53:04] Yeah.

Charles Harrell [00:53:05] So is that though attributable to the fact that God is powerless? Or is it something that God has imposed upon himself, those kinds of restrictions? Maybe he has chosen not to be that involved. Maybe the way that he does get involved is through other people. This is kind of that idea that when God chooses to help somebody, he usually does so through other people. And it may be that he is working with us by working through us.

John Dehlin [00:53:47] Right. And you would understand, you would have sympathy for someone who sort of said, well, that's just not. That's too limited of a. Of a supreme being for me. You know, that's just not enough power for me to really give my full devotion to. Can you. Can you at least sympathize with someone who would. That would. That would kind of feel that that was inadequate or, you know, insufficient?

Charles Harrell [00:54:15] Oh, yeah, I can understand that completely. I think that is just one of the reactions that one can have to. To the realization that maybe God isn't as totally involved and as totally in control of things as what I had imagined. But then what that does is it sets up this either or dichotomy again, to say that either there is a God and he operates like this and he has these characteristics, or there is no God and it's not worth paying attention to.

John Dehlin [00:54:56] Yeah. So what I hear you saying is we kind of have no choice. We either get more. I don't know if you like the word sophisticated or nuanced. I'm not sure what word you like best, But I hear you saying we either go there or we go to the extreme, which is to reject all religion, to reject God completely. And it sounds like you're not a fan of that either.

Charles Harrell [00:55:24] I think people tend to go to the opposite extreme, but I think that there is a whole continuum in between where a person can situate themselves.

John Dehlin [00:55:38] Okay, all right. And still believe that this God is compelling. Huh?

Charles Harrell [00:55:46] Still believe that there is a God, but not in the traditional, stereotypical sense.

John Dehlin [00:55:53] Yeah. Okay. All right, well, this is great. So let's jump to the second thing we might talk about. What would you say would be another big change that the church has seen or a big evolution in doctrine that we've witnessed?

The Fall, Atonement, and Plan of Salvation

Charles Harrell [00:56:15] See, I think one of them that may be of interest is the concept of the Fall, the atonement, you know, the plan of salvation.

John Dehlin [00:56:30] Okay.

Charles Harrell [00:56:31] Obviously this is crucial because it's often considered as being one of the foundational blocks of. Of the church and of what's really important in life. We talk about the creation, we talk about the Fall, we talk about the atonement, the plan of salvation. And that on those three pillars kind of rests everything else that we teach.

John Dehlin [00:56:56] Yeah. And so I'm just curious, you know, this one is kind of locked in the Articles of Faith. I mean, Adam see. Well, why don't you talk us through the evolution of the Doctrine of the Fall?

Charles Harrell [00:57:12] Well, yeah, Interestingly, you refer to the Articles of Faith where we read about one of them is we believe that all mankind will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. One of the things that I haven't been able to completely understand or comprehend with a lot of commentators and expositors in the Church is this notion that Joseph introduced doctrines that were earth shattering, that completely went against the grain of, of the time. While certainly he introduced a lot of ideas that were fairly unique, a lot of his doctrines, a lot of things that were introduced were not all that uncommon at the time. One of these is this doctrine of original sin. We sometimes hear people say that, wow, Joseph Smith completely went against the grain on this teaching of original sin. But what is not recognized oftentimes, I think, is that the way people understood original sin at the time of Joseph Smith, they understood it as having two aspects to it, sort of like two sides of a coin. One was the notion of original guilt, where the descendants of Adam, the posterity of Adam and Eve, inherit the guilt for Adam's transgression. But the other one is that they inherit a sort of a depraved nature. They become carnal, sensual, devilish by nature. At the time of Joseph Smith, evangelicals were making this kind of distinction between original guilt, which is again the culpability for Adam's sin, and, and original sin, which they saw as just being a depraved nature, being subject to sin, subject to follow their own vices and so forth. So what Joseph Smith is repudiating there in the Article of Faith is not original sin per se, but original guilt. That is a position that Quakers took, that a lot of evangelicals took, that even some of the reformed branches of Christianity took at the time. And they said it just doesn't make sense to say that Adam's descendants are responsible or are culpable for his transgression, even though they do inherit the consequences of his fall, which is growing up in a world of sin and so on. And you find that throughout the Book of Mormon that man by nature is carnal, sensual and devilish, that whole thing. Because of Adam's fall, everybody, we all have this tendency towards evil. And unless and until we yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man sort of thing. That is what we all have to do. So this is an example again, of, I think, how the understanding of original sin has changed over time. In fact, if you read in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism today and a lot of discussions on original sin, it isn't that we even inherit the nature of. Of a fallen person, but that simply. It means that we are born into a world of sin and so we are subjected to temptations. So we've kind of gone away from the Book of Mormon concept, which was very. Actually mainstream evangelical in Joseph Smith's day, very Arminian, which is the Methodist kind of Baptist sort of belief. We've gone from that position more to one of, oh, man is by nature not evil or good. They're just in a world that has temptation and sin, and they are free to choose good or evil, but they don't have any inclination necessarily towards sin because of the fall of Adam. And again, while that may be the case, I'm not trying to argue for what doctrine or what position is correct or not. All I'm saying is that I find it interesting how we have shifted our understanding of things to the point where we try to look back at Joseph Smith and say, wow, he introduced this idea that was totally counter to. To what was being preached at his time.

Guest 1 [01:02:37] Right.

John Dehlin [01:02:37] And so how does that affect us today? How is that. How is an understanding of those changes inform what our sensibilities are now?

Charles Harrell [01:02:51] Well, personally, I think it's a very positive change. I think it says that, oh, we don't have to look at the fall in a way more than almost introducing physical death into the world, at least that we inherit. Everybody has to die because of the fall of Adam, but only physically do they need to die. Spiritually, it's completely up to them. We're not depraved. We don't need to think about ourselves from a psychological point of view. We don't need to think of ourselves as being this carnally depraved individual. But it helps us to have a much more upbeat, optimistic perspective on life. So I think personally it's very healthy. And that's one of the things that I am pleased to see with a lot of the development in doctrine and in perception of doctrine and in our narratives is that in general, I see it being a positive trend. The change generally has been for the positive.

John Dehlin [01:04:10] Okay, yeah. So our. Our view of the nature of man has become more, I don't know, compassionate or gentle over time.

Charles Harrell [01:04:21] I don't think so. I think so.

John Dehlin [01:04:27] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out at saber-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories logo was generously donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest 1 [01:04:42] Come come ye saints no toil nor labor fear but with joy when you're away Though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to listen jo hearts will swell oh, all is well well all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our lot is hard Tis not so all is right why should we we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fight Gird up your lo fresh courage take Our God will never us for sake soon we'll have tal oh, all is well all is well oh, all is well all is well. And should we die before our journey's through happy day all is well we that are free from toil and sorrow too with the just we shall dwell. But if our lives are spared again to see the sa the rest obtain I will make this chorus swell oh, all is well all is well all is well all is well all is well oh, all is well.

Charles Harrell [01:08:54] All.

The Book of Mormon and Historical Context

Part 2 of 2 · Ep. 318

Charles Harrell [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org Let me jump into a question that. Well, it's not, I don't know if it's directly addressed in your book, maybe it is, but it's one that really trips a lot of people up. And it's this. It's that if you read the Book of Mormon, and this almost ties to Grant Palmer's thesis about what he claims to be the origins of the Book of Mormon, which is that, you know, we took a lot of the Bible, that Joseph Smith took a lot of the Bible, that he listened to, a lot of sermons that were happening in the burned over district, and he sort of took whatever, took whatever Christian, religious, doctrinal and theological sensibilities that he had and he munged all that together into the Book of Mormon. And what's highly suspicious for a lot of people is that so many of the doctrines that got developed after the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, things like, you know, the endowment, temple, marriage, baptisms for the dead, polygamy, or even just the nature of God, that instead of God being more trinitarian, that God, that Jesus was also a God and was separate and unique, that someday we can become gods, the stuff out of the King Follet discourse, all that comes later. And so for someone who wanted to say the Book of Mormon was just made up by Joseph, that case is compelling. Because if the Book of Mormon, if what we have now is the fullness of the gospel, and all these Nauvoo teachings are the fullness of the gospel, then they would have appeared in the Book of Mormon. But since the Book of Mormon says nothing about temple, marriage, endowment ceremony, even Melchizedek priesthood or baptism work for the dead, that all came later, well, then it's almost like the Book of Mormon was a snapshot of what Joseph believed at the time, not God giving us his full gospel in 1830. And so I think, doesn't this sort of jump to the heart of the premise of your book and what you're trying to explore? And if it is, how do you make sense of the Book of Mormon as still being God's, you know, one true book or most correct book, or the fullness of the Gospel, given that it leaves out so Much.

Charles Harrell [00:03:06] Yeah. First, let me say that in my opinion, the Book of Mormon, if we look at the translation, say, of the Book of Mormon, I think it goes beyond just giving Joseph Smith some latitude in how he expressed the language of the Book of Mormon. So we talk about a tight translation, loose translation. It seems to me that the translation of the Book of Mormon had to have been quite loose for Joseph Smith not to just draw upon language that he was familiar with to express the ideas in the Book of Mormon, but to actually draw upon contemporary discourse. It's almost like, as you pointed out, the sermons, the preaching that's done in the Book of Mormon is much, much closer to the religious discourse of the early 19th century than it would have been to any kind of ancient Jewish or even Christian sect. And also much more similar to early 19th century religious discourse than what it would be today even. We wouldn't recognize. In fact, we don't recognize a lot of the terminology and the argumentation that takes place in the Book of Mormon today because we're not familiar with the early 19th century Religious discourse that really it's centered around. I think to that extent, Alexander Campbell was correct to say that the Book of Mormon decides all the great controversies of the day, because it really does. But as you look at the fact that there are these kinds of things in the Book of Mormon, then you need to come up with an explanation for it. Is it because Joseph Smith put them there? Is it because it was actually in the ancient record? Or is there some other explanation for it? And there could be a number of different explanations. And I don't know, I don't claim to know what the answer is, but I do find appealing some of the attempts to explain it that have been given, which are similar to these explanations. I was alluding to earlier how Christians have explained the presence of cultural beliefs and practices. I mean, you take things like sacrifice, circumcision, temple work, ordinances and stuff that were practiced at the time of Moses, all that had precedent in the environment, Near Eastern culture in which the Israelites emerged. So the Book of Mormon shows a similar type of influence. There seems to be clearly an early 19th century evangelical influence. In fact, LDS scholars say this, that the Book of Mormon is thoroughly Arminian in the doctrines that it teaches. Now, for those who don't say Arminian, Arminian, Arminian. For those not familiar with that, that's a name of a movement or belief in free agency, that it's non Calvinism. Another way to think about it, it was, it comes from Jacob Arminius who was in fact a Calvinist who kind of rebelled against Calvinism and predestination and said, no, we don't have to do certain things. We have our agency. We're free to choose. We've all been given the light of Christ so that we can discern good from evil. What you read in early Mormonism is, is really thoroughly Arminian in its beliefs and claims. So that's what you see in the Book of Mormon. Now, the way that a lot of Christian scholars are explaining this, and this is maybe a little bit of a digression, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to read a statement by Karl Barth, who was a great, probably considered by many to be one of the greatest theologians of the last century. And he said this about the Bible itself. He said, the vulnerability of the Bible, that is its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content. So in other words, Christian scholars, theologians, biblical scholars, recognize that the Bible is vulnerable not only in the language that it uses or missing a few historical facts, but the theological content itself is subject to error because there is a diversity of theology in the Bible. But Barth goes on to say that biblical authors shared the outlook and spoke the language of their day. And therefore, whether we like it or not, they did not speak a special language of revelation radically different from that of their time. On the contrary, at point after point, we find them echoing contemporaries in time and space who did not share their experience and witness, often resembling them so closely that it is impossible to distinguish between them. Not only part, but all that they say is historically related and conditioned. I think anybody who makes a serious study of the Book of Mormon and at the same time a serious study of early 19th century evangelicalism, can't help but see that those theological doctrinal elements in the Book of Mormon are almost identical to those being preached and talked about in Joseph Smith's day. Now, coming back to how can you account for that? One way to account for it is say that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. He made it all up, or with some help from whomever, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, there are variations on that. But the way that Christian scholars have explained this human conditioning of the Bible is through this idea of what Benjamin Warfield, who was an early Princeton theologian, he described it as concursis. And what that meant was that the Bible or revelation, comes as a combination of both divine and human voices that are inseparable. So it's sort of like a mind, a Vulcan mind, Meld.

John Dehlin [00:10:58] That's what I was going to say. Yeah.

Charles Harrell [00:11:00] Where the mind of God comes in and joins with the mind of man and creates. So it's been called a process of creative co participation in Mormonism. Well, first of all, Christian scholars call this also an incarnational view of Scripture, that just as Christ came here on earth as both God and man, not a mixture of God and man, not part God and part man, but fully God and fully man man, that's the traditional Christian view of the incarnation of Christ. And so you can't really separate the two. They apply that model to Scripture as well and say that Scripture also is both fully divine and fully human. Several LDS scholars have taken that same position. You're aware of Blake Osler's expansion theory of the Book of Mormon? Yes, and some people get that wrong or misinterpret what he was saying, as though he was suggesting that Joseph Smith interjected things from his own culture. He took the basic history and he elaborated on it. And so you have this mosaic or conglomeration of things, a mixture of old stuff and new stuff in a way that could be very choppy. But then they come back and argue, but the Book of Mormon doesn't read very choppy. It reads as this very elegant text. But if you look at it from the standpoint of this idea of an incarnational model or concursus or. Or this creative co participation. Here's what Osler says. He says the presence of translator anachronisms or expansions in the book show that Joseph imposed an interpretation on the text which was foreign to the ancient text, but not an interpretation alien to his revelatory experiences which produced the book. In other words, he did not perceive the ancient text and then consciously interpret it as he pleased. Rather, the text is the revelation he experienced within his own conceptual paradigms. So notice he doesn't limit it to just the verbal language, but that God somehow spoke to him in his own conceptual paradigms, that that's how he understood the translation. And so Grant Underwood, for example, he is an LDS scholar, he said that in D&C 124, when the Lord says he speaks to man after the manner of their language, he says he's not just talking about their verbal language, but their cultural language as well. In other words, their cultural paradigms. So now I'm not advocating this view necessarily. I'm just saying that this is one way that many faithful Christian and LDS scholars are advancing as being one explanation for these apparent anachronisms and clear 19th century discourse, religious discourse that you find in the Book of Mormon.

John Dehlin [00:14:42] Got it.

Guest 2 [00:14:42] So.

John Dehlin [00:14:48] God can't really speak it, you know, so the idea is that God can't speak anything to us, that we're not able to conceptualize in our own framework, that we have to process, we have to take our own vocabulary, our own understanding, our own history, our own context, and then God will try and communicate to us, but it's always going to pass through this filter of our context and experience that leaves an indelible footprint in whatever revelation we receive.

Charles Harrell [00:15:21] Yes. Now whether he can or can't do that or whether he chooses versus chooses not to do that, who knows?

John Dehlin [00:15:34] Right? Well, okay, so it's not that he can't, but that this is the way it is, this appears to be the

Charles Harrell [00:15:41] way that it is for whatever it is. And as the Christians talk about the incarnation of Christ as being, that's the mystery of God. You know, this may be one of the grand mysteries of God is why does it work this way?

How Harrell Personally Navigates Doctrinal Tensions

John Dehlin [00:15:56] Okay, so, so I'm going to just, I'm going to pull out Occam's razor and ask you how you personally deal with this, because there's this consistency. You know, sometimes I get attacked by kind of Mormon fundamentalists, not FLDS church members, but sort of these people cut from the Bruce Armaconki, Joseph Fielding Smith cloth. And basically they come at me with quotes and literalistic interpretations. You know, they speak scripture to me as if scripture is not only factual but is self evident in its interpretation. And they'll selectively, although not in their own understanding, pull out quotes from general authorities to prove one point or another. And you know, for them everything is really clear and they're clear lines and clear rules and that's what they're governing by. But the truth is, in my view, an objective reading of Mormon history, of Mormon doctrine, of Mormon theology, there's no way to piece it all together into a seamless whole. It's self contradictory, it's confusing. And most importantly, and this is a response that I got from the, from the Brant Gardner interviews, which is that this explanation of the Book of Mormon, this explanation of church doctrine, of church theology, it's just too strained. You know, it's just to say that a horse isn't a horse, but that's the best word Joseph could come up with because he didn't know the word of whatever it was a tapir and a chariot isn't a chariot and a wheel isn't a wheel. And you know, when we start saying that words don't mean what they say they mean, that words can mean anything. For some people, it's just too much. It's too sophisticated, too complex, too confusing, to the point where they pull out Occam's razor and they say, you know what? I've got an easier way to work all this through. And that's that it was all made up. Because that explanation of the Book of Mormon that you just gave for some people is like, it's just too much. It was like I had this. I don't know if you heard my interview with Brant Gardner, but he insisted with a straight face and with, with what I believe was sincerity, that when the Book of Mormon says that God changed people's skins dark as a result of their wickedness, that God did not mean pigment, skin pigment. You know, his assertion is that never in the Book of Mormon does it claim in any credible way that God changes people's skin dark based on pigment because of wickedness. But instead when it says skin, what it means is their spiritual essence and metaphorical. Yeah. And that's like if that's true for some people, it just unravels because how do you trust what it means by baptism? How do you trust what it means by priesthood? How do you trust what it means by faith? And soon it becomes just this spongy mamby pamby free for all that stops becoming salvific. It's almost this prism that we look through and it's more a mirror that we just. We interpret things conveniently based on what we want them to mean and we're not compelled to any interpretation that doesn't suit our fancy.

Charles Harrell [00:19:44] That's the beauty of it.

John Dehlin [00:19:47] Well, okay, I can see that. But let's start with what would you say to someone who just says it's easier to say it's just all made up, it's just fictitious and it's fiction and it's fairytale. That's simpler.

Charles Harrell [00:20:06] Yeah. And I can respect that as being an interpretation of that individual if they reach that conclusion. I mean, there's no. What I explained with this idea of concursis, there's no way to validate that or to demonstrate that that's really the way that it works. It's just all theoretical, it's hypothetical. So if a person reaches the conclusion, which is not too difficult for some people to reach, that it's all man made, then I can respect them reaching that kind of a conclusion. The thing that rubs me a bit is I would feel much better if we could just acknowledge, okay, here's what they were saying, here's what they obviously met meant by this, or what apparently they meant. But we're going to consider it or apply it or adapt it in a different way for our society, for our culture, our time. And that's where I say that's the beauty of it, is that we don't let anything. We don't allow the language to be fixed or to mean what the straightforward meaning seems to be. Now, interestingly, with that dark skin, for example, in Joseph Smith's day, it was understood as being a curse. But then before long, you hear a lot of LDS apologists saying that it's not the dark skin that was the curse. It was only the mark or a sign of the curse. The real curse was this. So it kind of softened the significance. And so with this further step of saying, well, it's not even referring to the skin, it's all metaphorical

John Dehlin [00:22:14] now, that

Charles Harrell [00:22:14] softens it completely and makes it socially palatable to our modern sensibilities, where we kind of don't like the idea of God cursing people with a change in skin color because of its implications. So that's why I say to some extent the changes in the narratives that have been occurring over time have been to accommodate modern science, modern history, scholarship, modern sensibilities. And so I applaud it from that point of view. It's just that I would prefer to have us acknowledge that, okay, here's what it was saying in its original context. Here's how it was understood by the people of the time, and we just prefer to understand it differently today.

John Dehlin [00:23:12] Right. And how do you. What's your secret for? I mean, you know, your reaction was, that's what's awesome about it. That's what's great, is that there's so much flexibility. And what, what do you think makes one person go to that interpretation versus another, say, it's just too much. I can't. I can't buy this anymore. Do you have any theories on that or. You know, I don't feel from you a vibe that I've often felt from a certain select subgroup of apologists, which is, you know, well, some people just need to sin and so they're not going to believe. Or some people are just don't see the truth or they want to be dark, and so they choose disbelief. You know, I'm not getting that vibe. Like, the vibe I get from you is you. Yeah, the disbelief is a respectable, credible point of view. I don't have it, but that's a reasonable place for people to go. Am I picking up a sense of respect or at least empathy for disbelief from you?

Charles Harrell [00:24:15] Yeah, I would say so. I can understand how people feel the way that they do and reach the conclusions that they do. My one of the purposes in writing the book was to try to, at the end, present some alternative ways of treating this kind of material or dealing with it so that it's not this again, either or all or nothing sort of proposition. But I think the church is doing itself a disservice by continuing in this more dogmatic vein, fundamentalist vein of saying that the gospel and the gospel teachings and doctrine has never changed. It's always been taught the same since the time of Adam on through the New Testament times, Book of Mormon times, Doctrine and Covenants, and modern times. It's all the same story, one grand unified theology of the church. And that's the thing that I think I would like to see us soften our position a little bit more on and recognize that doctrine has a history, that it is culturally conditioned, that because we know doctrines that have changed, certain doctrines have changed. Blacks in the priesthood, for example, others. And so we have examples of the Church dealing with that and recognizing that, okay, we may have made a mistake. We don't know why blacks were denied the priesthood. We shouldn't be teaching these kinds of doctrines anymore. They're folklore now. So there is a willingness, I think, among the leadership of the church today to make those kinds of acknowledgments. I just think that there's a long ways to go with that.

John Dehlin [00:26:24] Yeah.

Guest 2 [00:26:25] So.

John Dehlin [00:26:25] Well, that makes me want to ask you two questions. First of all, there was a time when there's no one that I loved more in the church than Bruce Amakanki and his father in law, Joseph Fielding Smith. Because, like, to me, they spoke it plain, they spoke it pure. It was clear. You just crack out Mormon doctrine, the book, and you've got the answer. And it was powerful and harsh and bold. I loved it.

Charles Harrell [00:27:01] You feel good when you hear that stuff. It makes you shout and say, wow, I have certainty here.

John Dehlin [00:27:08] Yeah, yeah, it's like meth or crack or something, you know, I mean, and. And, you know, condemning the Catholic Church, I thought that was awesome. You know, I was like, yeah, this is it. And so I love that for a lot of years. But then, you know, but then when things started unraveling and it unraveled as I started studying the doctrine and the theology like you have in the history, I grew to the opposite. I grew to feel anger for Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith. I mean, especially when I. When I read the history of people like B H Roberts and Hubie Brown and Arrington and Juanita Brooks and Eugene England and Lowell Bennion, you know, there's like, carnage in the wake of Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and you might even extend that today, and I won't name any names, but there's almost carnage in the wake of how these people have been treated when they've tried to say what you're saying now or what modern Mormon sensibilities seem to want to say to us. And so my first question is about Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce Armaconki. Like, I'm not going to ask you to, like, condemn them, but do you ever feel frustration at the impact that they've had on the church?

Fundamentalist Voices and Their Doctrinal Legacy

Charles Harrell [00:28:44] Definitely. I think that they grew up in an era where that was probably common. I don't know that they decided themselves one day that they're going to be this hardliner and be very dogmatic and assertive with everything that they taught, or if they were more products, to some extent, of the culture of the day and the mindset in the church. But they certainly contributed a lot to it, and I think that's unfortunate and that we're still in the wake of the damage of the influence that they had in the church, and it's going to be years before we completely escape that. But on the positive side, it looks like we are moving in the other direction. So we're not moving more in the tradition that they established. We're moving away from it.

John Dehlin [00:29:51] Yeah. So you do sympathize with those who would feel like maybe they even hurt the church in some ways. And is that right?

Charles Harrell [00:30:03] Oh, yeah, they definitely have. But then, on the other hand,

Guest 2 [00:30:12] they

Charles Harrell [00:30:12] like any institution to keep its members to have the kind of strong influence over them, you need this voice of clarity, of certainty. Right. Of reinforcement of belief. And as you mentioned, when you heard them speak and you read their writings, you feel like, wow, they know, and they know that they know. How can anything be more certain than this? I can really hang my hat on it. I've got a nice stake in the ground here to rest my faith on. But as you point out, that's only superficial as people come to realize that. Oh, wait a minute. We don't really know for sure about a lot of the things that they taught. In fact, many of the things that they taught have been overturned in previous teachings and doctrines in the church. So what does that say about this sense of certainty that I had at the time? Was that my own imagination or what? And so one tendency, as you point out, is to just turn the whole thing off and say, wow, I was deluded here, I'm going to hang it up, or a person can react in a number of different ways. Another reaction could be, wow, this really is a human led church. Even if Christ is at the head of it, it's human driven. And I've got to just acknowledge that and see now what that means for the kind of faith I should have in the church.

John Dehlin [00:32:08] Right, right. And I, you know, I like that. And I think that's the only way we can go and not. And live in reality.

Charles Harrell [00:32:19] I agree. I think that you can't say it's either all false or it's all true. You get into that kind of impasse and people are just going to go one way or the other. And I think what is happening in the church, and you're obviously a part of this, is a growing element of membership or growing population of the membership that is looking for a place inside the bigger tent that can make allowance for the human shaping of a lot of the theology and doctrine and yet still enjoy a lot of the positive benefits of the church.

John Dehlin [00:33:07] Right, right. So let me ask you the second part of the question then, and that's that what do we do with the fact that when our church leaders get up in general conference and speak, you don't get the sense that they're saying, well, what we're saying now is our best understanding and it may change and it's within the context of our framing, but you should interpret things and believe and feel the way that you're most comfortable. And to be honest, we're having a position now, but it could change in 10 or 20 or 30 years. But this is our best, you know, our best guess or our best interpretation of what God wants us to do? You know, that's, it's fair to say that's not the sensibility you get from the brethren now. Right.

How Doctrine Gets Established in the Church

Charles Harrell [00:34:05] That is certainly true.

John Dehlin [00:34:09] So it's not just Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith. It's almost like they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say, literally obey us. And we're never going to ask you to say that we know everything and are perfect, but it's almost like we have this culture of worship, of leader worship, where we don't allow anyone to say that the brethren aren't perfect. You could never get up and Say in sacrament meeting what you said to me here, without maybe there being some pretty big social repercussions and potentially church discipline, you know, of speaking against the Lord's anointed or, you know, apostasy. And so, and so, you know, the brethren, the brethren seem to be, even today, encouraging this mentality that you and I are saying isn't workable. Right.

Charles Harrell [00:35:04] I don't know that they're deliberately encouraging it, consciously doing it, or if they themselves are sort of victims or caught up in that same mentality and tradition of, hey, we've got these pat answers to things that we've learned in seminary ourselves and institute and through all of our Sunday school training and the manuals of the church. And that's all we know. And so we're going to continue to perpetuate that. But it takes stepping out of that stream and looking at learning, finding out for oneself what the doctrinal history is and then seeing that, oh, maybe these pat answers are not the only answers or maybe even the best answers to some of these questions. And maybe I need to be a little more. Provisional in the statements that I make and the assertions that I make. And I do think that there are some leaders of the church who have more of that mentality and who are less inclined to just boldly make statements about things without thinking and considering the impact that that might have and that maybe they don't fully understand that truth themselves.

John Dehlin [00:36:38] Who would you, are you, are you comfortable telling us who are some of the people that, that you sort of getting when you hear their remarks, you're more encouraged than. Not by

Charles Harrell [00:36:53] Elder Holland would be one. Let's see. Elder Turley. Uh huh.

John Dehlin [00:37:05] Is he a general authority?

Charles Harrell [00:37:07] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:37:09] Okay, but

Charles Harrell [00:37:12] let's see. No, no, no, that's not who I'm thinking of. Marlon Jensen's name slipped my mind. He's not, he's, he's doing a lot of work with. Groups in the church that are kind of fringe groups. He's reaching out to them. Marlon Jensen. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, yeah, that's what I was thinking of.

John Dehlin [00:37:36] Okay.

Charles Harrell [00:37:36] So, yeah, I think there are a couple that at least are open minded and are willing to engage in discussion with respect to these things. But there are others who I wouldn't say that they're not willing to, but I don't think they're comfortable with engaging in that kind of discussion because that's not the world in which they live.

John Dehlin [00:38:07] Right. Yeah. And so, and so we, so we do have. Oh, you know who else I'd add is. Is Uchtdorf.

Charles Harrell [00:38:20] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:38:21] Like you don't ever hear him harping on exclusivity and you know, anything that would be alienating. Basically you hear him more just sort of talking about love and kindness and just common sense kind of things and you just don't, you don't get that same doctrinaire, harsh, strict, exclusive kind of feeling that we've had in the past. Would you agree with that?

Charles Harrell [00:38:54] I would. In fact, that's one of the things that the other conclusions I draw in the epilogue of the book is that maybe doctrine isn't all that important after all. Maybe there are other things that are more important and that doctrine is just a lot of the stuff that we use to explain why we do what we do. But that in fact it's the genuine Christian living and living a life of service and love and community, that those are things that people, as you mentioned, like President Uchtdorf, that's what they're emphasizing in their conference talks.

John Dehlin [00:39:36] Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so there's two. You know, I appreciate, I really appreciate your candor because this is so important and it's going to be so refreshing to members who want to believe that they're hearing someone, you know, who's willing to talk like this, who still is a believer. I mean, it's really remarkable. But there are a couple things we're kind of saying here. One is that it's okay to sort of say, yes, some of the brethren kind of get it right and a lot of them don't get it right. Like that's sort of just taboo in and of itself, isn't it? To sort of bring critical thinking and analysis and the intellect and even judgment into our thoughts about church leadership.

Charles Harrell [00:40:37] It is.

John Dehlin [00:40:38] Isn't that kind of heretical?

Charles Harrell [00:40:39] That is sort of heretical. It's a mindset that I think that it would be healthy if we could get over it, which is we're not very self critical as a church as a whole and we just kind of nod our head and if we do disagree we kind of just shrug it off and continue on and just accept them. They're the Brethren and whether I agree or not, they're the ones that I support to lead me. And we're just going to leave it at that without having any kind of discussion or any kind of forum where ideas or thoughts can be discussed.

John Dehlin [00:41:24] Yeah, but you're. This is bold. Like I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bold. Like for me to say it. I'm just some dude who Does a podcast out of his basement. But what you're saying is really bold. It's. It's courageous. Really.

Charles Harrell [00:41:39] I'm sorry, I'm just the other person on. Or the person on the other side of this podcast, so I don't know. I'm an idiot.

John Dehlin [00:41:45] No, but I mean. No, but it's bold. It's bold and courageous. What you're advocating for as a traditionally believing member who also happens to work at byu, like, do you feel worried or nervous or have you ever had feedback that this is inappropriate? Or do you feel, you know, it's just mind boggling that you can say these things and still not only be a believing member, but be on the BYU faculty? To me, but maybe I've misjudged the flexibility and the latitude that the church allows. That's also possible.

Charles Harrell [00:42:25] Yeah, I guess we'll see after this podcast.

John Dehlin [00:42:29] But you see what I'm saying, right?

Charles Harrell [00:42:31] Oh, yes. I think that there is a desire to be. Byu, like any university, likes to uphold this idea of intellectual honesty. And there's a little bit of a tension there, obviously, with trying to maintain that stance and also recognizing that they have an allegiance to the church and a responsibility to support the mission of the church, which is to keep members in the church, to keep people from calling into the church or calling BYU and saying, gosh, here my son or daughter is here at byu. And is this the kind of thing that they're hearing now? Fortunately, I don't teach religion at byu. I don't advocate any kind of position. And of course, even in the book, I don't say that particular doctrines or teachings of the church are wrong in any sense. I'm just saying that if you look at them historically, there is an evolution in their development. And it isn't always in a progressive line upon line. It's getting better trajectory.

John Dehlin [00:43:53] Sometimes things devolve, like Joseph giving the priesthood to Elijah Abel, but then us forbidding blacks from having the priesthood later. Right. Is that an example?

Charles Harrell [00:44:03] Exactly. So there's starts and stops and zigzags and all kinds of change that you see. So I don't say that the doctrines that we teach today are wrong, but I do raise the issue that there isn't compelling reason to necessarily believe that they are better than doctrines that have been taught in the past. And I'm not sure that we have a good firm basis to make that decision, especially given the fact that there is change and the doctrines that we do espouse today may not be around in the next decade or Century.

John Dehlin [00:44:47] Right, Right. Okay. Well, what I wanted to do was really dive into four or five chapters in your book. But the truth is we've gotten such to the heart of the matter that what we've ended up doing is we've taken one or two and kind of really dug in. And I think that's. I think it's been good. I'm glad we just kind of got to the heart of the matter. You know why? Because it makes people want to go buy your book. Right. And read the rest.

Charles Harrell [00:45:17] Go out and buy it.

John Dehlin [00:45:19] So. But. But before we do, I want to. I want to give you a chance. Could you just list off? And I didn't ask you ahead of time to be prepared for this, so I hope I'm not putting you too much on the spot. But it's one thing to just talk about how doctrines or theologies have changed. It's another to talk about ones that have changed in ways that maybe are harmful, that maybe we've gotten away from an interpretation in a way that it's been a devolution and it's gotten away from. It's taken us to a place that's unhealthy, or it's gotten to a place that's problematic. And we would be better served to invoke an earlier version of a doctrine or teaching, perhaps because it would put us on safer ground or it would help us be better people or more Christlike. Can you just jump to that and say, are there any doctrines or teachings that you've. Or. And I'm not going to say doctrines or teachings, perceptions of doctrines or teachings or theology or folk doctrines or teachings that you highlight in the book or feel that are damaging, that you would say, you know, readers, when you read my book or when you think about this, these are some ones in particular that are harmful that we need to start thinking about differently. What would those be? Do you have a list? Or even one or two.

Problematic Doctrines and Practices Today

Charles Harrell [00:47:00] That'd be a hard list to come up with. I don't get so much into practices. I think one could look at practices in the Church today and raise questions about the appropriateness of certain practices. But doctrines, as I mentioned, most of the doctrines tend to be evolving towards a more positive light, socially, more positive, scientifically, historically. Even in looking at the nature of man, as I mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it showed a very pessimistic view of the nature of man, whereas in later LDS teachings, the nature of man is viewed on a very positive level. You look at the teaching of man becoming as God, for example. I mean, what greater prospect could there be for humans than to have that potential or that prospect of becoming like God? The changing doctrine of heaven and hell in the Book of Mormon to the doctrine that everybody's saved except for the few sons of perdition. So let's see. Trying to think of one that went backwards. That's a tough one. I do know, and this really doesn't impinge so much on people's day to day behavior. But there was a teaching that Joseph F. Smith gave about in the Redemption of the Dead that I point out in the book where he held out promise to everybody who is in the spirit world, whether they had heard the gospel and, and rejected it or not, that they would have a chance to hear the gospel and repent and be saved there. Now we've kind of reverted back to the earlier teachings of Joseph Smith and others who taught more of an idea that if you hear the gospel and reject it in this life, you will not have that chance in the life to come. That's one where we've kind of gone backwards and we've become a little less sympathetic towards people who have rejected the gospel in this life and kind of shut them off and said, you don't get another chance. So as I mentioned, that's not a very striking doctrine or one that strikes at the heart of a lot of people's day to day lives. I can't think of another one offhand. That is a doctrinal teaching.

John Dehlin [00:49:56] Right, right. And so do I hear again you saying that the more inclusive we are, the more universalistic we are, or leaning that way is better than not leaning that way. Did I hear you kind of.

Charles Harrell [00:50:14] I'm expressing that as my preference. That's what I like to see. Whether or not that makes it true doctrine. That's one thing I try to avoid in the book and even in my personal life to try to say that God has a body of flesh and bones. True or false? Gosh, I don't know. Do we see God walking around? Can we make that kind of a judgment other than a statement that the prophet made, where in a lot of previous statements, God has a spirit, he's just a spirit. So for me to come to a conclusion about a theological proposition and say this is the true doctrine, that's very difficult. I can say that I appreciate a particular doctrine more than another one.

John Dehlin [00:51:08] Right, right. Okay. There are two. There are two doctrines, well, let's say three that get a lot of attention. And I'm just going to ask you about them really quickly. The first is polygamy. Right. On the one hand, the Book of Mormon says that polygamy shouldn't be practiced unless God calls for it. The early version of the Doctrine and Covenants, I believe it's section 111, explicitly forbids polygamy. Right. Denounces it, the early version of the Book of Commandments or whatever. Then we've got section 132 of the doctrine and Covenants, which is basically advocating for it and celebrating it and encouraging it. And you've got church leaders throughout time that have even gone as far as to say you can't make the celestial kingdom without it. And then you've got the manifestos and then you've got Gordon B. Hinckley appearing on Larry King Live saying that polygamy isn't doctrinal. Right. What do you make sense of that?

Charles Harrell [00:52:26] That doctrines change and people can say, well, the doctrine hasn't changed, it's just a practice and practices change, doctrines don't change. But I think that's quibbling over semantics there.

John Dehlin [00:52:42] It is.

Charles Harrell [00:52:43] To me, that's a doctrine where you talk about the nature of marriage and the nature of the hereafter and eternal life. Is it predicated on having, is it predicated on monogamy or polygamy or what? So, yeah, there have definitely been changes in doctrine there. Now, coming back to the doctrine concept, I don't view doctrine as being absolute truths, the absolute truths of ultimate reality, but simply as what we hold as a church or as a people. And it's the current what's being taught. Those are the doctrines. It's current beliefs. So to say that doctrines change doesn't. It doesn't mean that truth is changing. It just means that our understanding, our perception and our beliefs change with time. And I think it may sound radical or heretical, but I don't think it's that far fetched to acknowledge that that is the case.

John Dehlin [00:53:57] Right. Yeah, it's just as we've talked about, it's just different. It's just so, it's just so fun to just look at it all like it's the truth. You know, doctrine is the unchangeable, immovable truth. It's, it's reassuring, it's comforting, but I think we've already established. But it's also dangerous, right?

Charles Harrell [00:54:23] Yeah, but it is dangerous, right?

John Dehlin [00:54:25] Yeah. And it's, it's not, it's, it's just, it's a house of cards. Right?

Charles Harrell [00:54:33] Doctrine itself, to a large extent. Yes.

John Dehlin [00:54:36] Yeah. Well, and just you're building your house on sand when you think you're building it on granite. If you look at doctrine as immovable and unchangeable.

Charles Harrell [00:54:47] Right, Exactly.

John Dehlin [00:54:48] Yeah. Okay, the next one is theosis. Right. That man can become a God. Right. When Gordon Behinky was asked about that from I think Time magazine, he said, I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. Would you say the same thing as, is that a change in doctrine or what?

Theosis, Deification, and Shifting Emphases

Charles Harrell [00:55:08] I'd say it's a change in emphasis. It's kind of what his words were. But it does reflect a shifting attitude. I think, personally think that the early Saints took Joseph Smith maybe much more seriously in some of his teachings than we do today. And that, to me, is one of them. I think the early Saints were really struck by his teaching. I mean, that was pretty radical. To say it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty that God was once a man and that man can become God. That seems like a pretty strong statement. And then to come back later and say, well, I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. Maybe we don't teach it very much or emphasize it very much, but it is still a lingering doctrine or teaching that. That I would say most members accept because of its strong legacy from the time of Joseph Smith and of course, even back to Lorenzo Snow. So, yeah, that's definitely a shift in emphasis. Now today I think people are starting to question whether or not because it's not canonized, and here you get back to the definition of doctrine or official doctrine. It's not official doctrine, so maybe it's not the truth. Here we get into this idea of equating canonical teachings with the truth. And if it's canonical, then it must be true, but if it's non canonical, it may or may not be true. And this is a teaching that may or may not be true. So that's an interesting way that we're manipulating that particular teaching today. In my mind, I think at the time of Joseph Smith, there was probably less of a differentiation between, oh, that's in the Scriptures versus this is what Joseph Smith is teaching us. Why shouldn't we believe it as much as we believe the Scriptures? Isn't he our prophet?

John Dehlin [00:57:35] Right, right. Yeah. Okay. Do you think. Do you think a member can be in good standing and not believe that the Book of Mormon is historical? Or do you think that's a litmus test that sifts the wheat from the Tares

Charles Harrell [00:57:56] That's a good question. I think there's been some acceptance of members. I know. Here's a case again where I believe it was Elder Holland who may have said that, or Elder Oaks, I don't recall which one, that said we need to not completely cast these people off who don't believe necessarily in the history.

John Dehlin [00:58:20] That was Holland in his PBS interview, I believe.

Charles Harrell [00:58:23] Okay. So, yeah. Does the church have an official position towards them? What would a particular bishop or stake president do? They have a lot of latitude themselves to make decisions about those sorts of things. I don't know what the general attitude is of the church or general policy, if they even have a policy about, say, withholding a recommend or whatever. If a member were to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

John Dehlin [00:59:03] Right, yeah. Okay. So it just depends on who the leader is. It's kind of bishop roulette a little bit.

Charles Harrell [00:59:12] Right?

John Dehlin [00:59:13] Yeah. Okay, well, so I would like. I think I'm really happy with our exploration. Are there any points or topics you want to cover before I ask you kind of a final question? Are you feeling good?

Charles Harrell [00:59:31] Yeah, I feel all right with the topics that we covered. There's certainly a lot of other topics, but again, that's what the book's for and.

John Dehlin [00:59:38] Yeah, yeah, I'll just, I'll just read it. I'll just, you know, the book covers God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Satan, the pre existence, creation, the Fall, the Atonement, the Gospel plan, salvation for the dead, priesthood, second coming, gathering of Israel in Zion. That's it. That's one that's changed. Establishment of Zion, second coming, millennium, resurrection, Final Judgment. Great book. Before we close, I would like to hear you do me a favor. I would like you to tell us what makes the Church credible enough and compelling enough to still command your loyalty and attention. In other words, what's the root of your testimony? But I hope you see what I'm asking.

Personal Testimony and Staying in the Church

Charles Harrell [01:00:30] I think so, yeah.

John Dehlin [01:00:33] And take as long as you want. This doesn't have to be a 30 second soundbite, you know.

Charles Harrell [01:00:38] Okay. What is the most important to me is I think, and where I connect with the Church the most and at the basic core level is its fundamental purpose. And these are the kinds of things that you hear in conferences and so on. Most of the addresses which are focused on living a more Christlike life, living a life of integrity, a life of service. So I think the Church espouses those things and is very serious about it and has outstanding programs for helping neighbors, home teaching, visiting teaching, kinds of programs. There aren't many organizations in the world that have such a strong community, sense of community and a sense of watching out for one another, of caring for one another. It's one thing to have a feeling of caring for other people, but to have a structure there, a vehicle, a mechanism for actually carrying out service projects and getting people together on a moment's notice in the time of a crisis. I think those are very admirable traits of the church. Those are the things that attract me most to the church because I think the lifestyle is a healthy lifestyle. I think the overall purpose of the church to make bad men good and good men better, is a worthy, noble cause.

John Dehlin [01:02:32] Right? Right. What do you do? I asked Richard Bushman this and I'll tell you what he said before I ask you to answer. I asked him what he made of the one true church, one and only true church element of his testimony. He said two things. He said he didn't like to think of the church in terms of true or false. He liked to think of it in terms of goodness. And then he kind of framed his testimony as saying he sees a lot of good in the church. And he says that he chooses to live in a world where God speaks to man through prophets. But he sort of acknowledged that it's a choice. And what I got the sense is that he didn't have a lot of comfort with this idea of one true church and exclusive authority and all that. What are you comfortable sharing about that, you know, those issues of exclusivity, exclusive truth, one and only true church, exclusive authority? Do you cling to that? Do you keep it at an arm's distance? Do you deny it? Where are you on that question?

Charles Harrell [01:03:40] I have to say I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of maintaining and promoting a sense of exclusivity. I think that there are many movements, many groups that have a lot to offer and a lot of good principles and practices that we could learn from as Latter Day Saints. I think that I would prefer to look at the church as being one of many good movements going on in the world today. I like Paul's statement. It's the same spirit that fills all in all or that works in all things sort of thing. And for us to feel like one of the things that this attitude of exclusivity does is obviously it fosters a sense of superiority, of we're better than the other team sort of thing. And also that we have kind of a monopoly on truth, on spiritual powers. And so I think it. It fosters some negative things that I think are harmful. This has kind of always been the case. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to lead to those sorts of attitudes, but too often those are the attitudes that arise. And what are you to think when you hear indoctrinal teachings that we are the only ones who have the gift of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit are these miracles and speaking in tongues, all these other things. Other churches don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost. So if they have manifestations, then they are of a temporal nature, maybe temporary. It's only to lead them to the church sort of thing. We don't really see them as real legitimate expressions in the same way that we would view our own. So that's a particular case or a more specific explanation of why I don't feel real comfortable with the idea of promoting and myself feeling strong about the exclusive posture of the church.

John Dehlin [01:06:33] Right, right. Well, all I can say, at the risk of sounding condescending, all I can say is you're my kind of Mormon. Not that you're looking for validation from me, but I just, this is the only way I can be a Mormon is the way you describe. And whenever I find someone who is within the institution, who proudly claims the institution, but who can speak with these sensibilities, my heart leaps with rejoice and it gives me hope and encouragement about the future of the Church. I know you didn't ask for that, but I'm just going to share it anyway.

Charles Harrell [01:07:13] I appreciate that.

John Dehlin [01:07:14] I hope that's okay. All right. Well, the book is this Is My Doctrine, the Development of Mormon Theology. The author is Charles Harrell. You can purchase this book@gregkofer.com, g R E G K O F F O R-D.com if you use the code M stories all in caps, you can get a discount. And it also is going to throw a little money our way. And you would help support a great book, a great author, a great publisher, and a lot of good causes and more openness and flexibility within Mormonism. So, Charles, Harold, thank you so much for coming on Mormon Stories.

Closing Reflections and Farewell

Charles Harrell [01:08:00] It's my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

John Dehlin [01:08:02] All right, we'll talk to you soon.

Charles Harrell [01:08:05] Okay.

John Dehlin [01:08:08] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out@saber-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories look logo was generously donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest 2 [01:08:24] Come, come ye saints, no toil nor labor fear but with joy wend your way Though hard to you this journey may appear your grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to the San Jo. Your hearts will swell oh, all is well all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our lot is high Tis not so all is right why should we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fire? Gird up your lo Fresh courage take Our God will never us for sake soon we'll have tale to tell oh, all is well all is well oh, all is well all is well. Sam. Sa. And should we die before our journey's through Happy day All is well we that are free from toil and sorrow too with the just with we shall dwell but if our lives are spared again to see the saints the rest obtain I will make this chorus swell oh, I'll is away well all is well all is well

John Dehlin [01:12:16] all is well

Guest 2 [01:12:19] all is well oh, is well. All in the way all in the way.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.