Interesting, although most EV scholars I know would just write it off as "liberal" like they do anything else that contradicts their viewpoint. That's interesting though that a non-Mormon commentary would come up with the Mormon view of the creation story on it's own.I have something to think about. If we assume arguendo that paladism is a "deeper doctrine" of Mormonism to what extent does it compare to the version that is believed by Kaballists, Judaism, Freemasons, Luciferians, etc.? For instance, if we compare the views of Mackey, Pike, Levi, Acquino, Crowley, the Zohar, etc. (or any other source that has written on the subject) with what was believed by Brigham Young or maybe even our apostolic leaders today, would there be a wide variety of views or is it all pretty much consistent? For instance, current LDS doctrine has Lucifer as a tempter and tester but is punished for his rebellion in the end of the age. Has this always been so, or was LDS doctrine at one time more consistent with the above sources? I'm just wondering to what extent Masonic authors (like Mackey, Pike, and Levi) may have contributed to early Mormon thought, with the church's close affiliation with Freemasonry in the Nauvoo period. Currently what is being taught by our opponents, like Dekker and Schnoebelen, is that paladism is the "great secret" doctrine that all "secret" societies are trying to keep from the masses, and that Lucifer worship is the goal of some mass one-world "conspiracy." I think apologetics would come a long way in silencing these critics if the proper comparisons were made, maybe in book form. I think the masonic elements still present in our church automatically cause Dekker and Schnoebelen to tie us in with Pike, Levi, Mackey, etc.
