How were they constructed, and when?
Pyramid Power
History is fun, because more than 99% is lost for all time, as C. S. Lewis observed. We are even hazy about recent events, such as how JFK and FDR died, and whether Amelia Earhart died in the Pacific.
Assumptions determine conclusions, so all we need to do is start with the wrong assumptions and all the conclusions will be in error. For example, many books show broken down pyramids and caption them as "early pyramids, before they learned how to build one correctly." I was thinking, since we do not understand how they were built, the broken down ones may be examples of a later age trying to build them to recapture the golden era of monumental construction.
The old assumption was that pyramids were built from enormous carved stones, hauled up to gigantic heights. A new pyramid construction theory is gaining some traction, thanks to MIT, the NY Times, and a Frenchman. The Egyptians might have invented poured concrete, a building method used with great success by the Romans, who invented very little but borrowed a lot from their conquests. ( Old saying - "The Romans had the drains, but the Greeks had the brains.")
We do not even know when the Great Pyramid was built, although most experts cheerfully date it at 2000 BC. They call it the Pyramid of Cheops, so everyone assumes the pharaoh Cheops built it, limiting its date to his years. The Great Pyramid is a tomb, they claim, but no body was found buried there. Nevertheless, the monstrous pile of masonry was the tallest man-made construction in the world until the Eiffel Tower - unless we count other pyramids built in various locations, raising even more questions.
False Assumptions about Lutherdom
When people try to prove their conclusions by starting with their assumptions, I think of the pyramids. Universalism can be proven just as easily as justification by faith, depending on the assumptions. The Glories of My (fill in the blank) Holy Mother Synod can also be taught the same way.UOJ Has Always Been Taught
Unfortunately for the glassy-eyed, UOJ is limited to the most recent era, as Sig Becker and others have admitted.
Missouri Has Always Taught UOJ
The Brief Statement of 1932 certainly teaches UOJ, but earlier statements did not and the 1905 catechism omitted that precious doctrine, teaching justification by faith instead.
Robert Preus always taught UOJ
If we burn all the copies of Justification and Rome, that might be true. But he repudiated UOJ in his last book, in spite of the best efforts of Dan and Rolf (editors).
Luther Taught UOJ
Fortunately, Luther knew the difference between the atonement and justification, so he never taught UOJ. In fact, even the most ardent UOJ fans have to admit that "justification" in the New Testament and the Book of Concord always means justification by faith.
Liberals Wrecked the Synodical Conference
That is true, except that UOJ was the bad liberal yeast of the Synodical Conference, based upon weak teaching of the efficacy of the Word.
When Synod Became Church, That Spelled the End
Soon after UOJ became Law in Missouri, the synod adopted mainline apostate Biblical teaching on everything. Labels do not have the destructive effect of Enthusiasm, and UOJ is pure Enthusiasm. So is Receptionism, which still clings to the Synod Conference like soap film. Brief Statement, 1932. Missouri a mainline sect - the 1940s.
They Could Not Wait for F. Pieper To Die
The sainthood and apotheosis of Walther was probably far more destructive than the death of Pieper. Missouri is not the most "God-glorifying church" in history, as Walther claimed, but the most navel-gazing. The Book of Concord teaches the Gospel, not the synod. The Synodical Conference still glorifies itself.
