Jump to content

Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?


elguanteloko

Recommended Posts

I was reading the second volume of Copleston's "A History of Philosophy" which deals with Medieval Philosophy. As you can imagine, the predominant ideas circle around theological issues though the book moves (mostly) without accepting the doctrines of dogma but tries to arrive at them through natural reason (thus, being a philosophy, not theology, book).

When reading it, however, something struck me. This stuff was new to me. Not new in the sense that I haven't heard some of the arguments but the fact that the whole effort was to arrive to, and make sense of, the dogmas of faith through some serious thinking. Is there a St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas of Mormonism that I haven't heard of? Some serious systematic theologian or Mormon philosopher? Granted, Catholicism has been around for MUCH longer than Mormonism, but still I think it is a question worth making.

BTW, it has been my experience that members of the LDS Church, like I was, aren't aware (for the most part) of how Aquinas or St. Bonaventure read and they tend to think of them as just people who, because of their lack of the real knowledge, got too many things wrong to bother reading them. Please don't do that.

Link to comment

We put a premium on revelation so there is no pressing need for an Aquinas or Maimonides. That is probably why Blake Ostler is the closest we have so far.

I agree with you about taking great thinkers seriously and not dismissing them off the bat.

Link to comment

I was reading the second volume of Copleston's "A History of Philosophy" which deals with Medieval Philosophy. As you can imagine, the predominant ideas circle around theological issues though the book moves (mostly) without accepting the doctrines of dogma but tries to arrive at them through natural reason (thus, being a philosophy, not theology, book).

When reading it, however, something struck me. This stuff was new to me. Not new in the sense that I haven't heard some of the arguments but the fact that the whole effort was to arrive to, and make sense of, the dogmas of faith through some serious thinking. Is there a St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas of Mormonism that I haven't heard of? Some serious systematic theologian or Mormon philosopher? Granted, Catholicism has been around for MUCH longer than Mormonism, but still I think it is a question worth making.

BTW, it has been my experience that members of the LDS Church, like I was, aren't aware (for the most part) of how Aquinas or St. Bonaventure read and they tend to think of them as just people who, because of their lack of the real knowledge, got too many things wrong to bother reading them. Please don't do that.

If there were/are any LDS Augustines or Aquinas they would have to be one of the Q. of 12 or 1st Pres. Anyone influencing the body of the church with new theological philosophies or ideas outside of the 15 head guys would be warned or even excommunicated. The church is set up in a way that only the 15 could make any progressive changes and even then, it would be claimed as revelation and not philosophy based or populistic thinking.

Link to comment

If there were/are any LDS Augustines or Aquinas they would have to be one of the Q. of 12 or 1st Pres.

I don't get why and I don't think that would be the case. If this is so, however, mormons are doomed. lol

Anyone influencing the body of the church with new theological philosophies or ideas outside of the 15 head guys would be warned or even excommunicated.

Well... I don't know about that.

The church is set up in a way that only the 15 could make any progressive changes and even then, it would be claimed as revelation and not philosophy based or populistic thinking.

You see, "revelation" is probably the least influential factor in the Church. Anyways, though, I'm not talking about "philosophy based on populistic thinking". Aquinas wasn't "populistic thinking", for example. I'm talking about well reasoned philosophy.

Link to comment
The church is set up in a way that only the 15 could make any progressive changes and even then, it would be claimed as revelation and not philosophy based or populistic thinking.

Really? You mean the Seventies and even the general membership don't get a say at all? :crazy:

Link to comment

It might just be me, but I don't take seriously the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

If something "makes sense" then it has to do philosophy. I don't want to sound offensive but this shows a terrible lack of understanding about what philosophy is.

But I do take seriously, the theology taught by Prophets who commune with the Lord.

...you don't think they do, at least, some philosophy? Have you ever watched General Conference? Have you taken a Critical Thinking class?

Link to comment

What do you like about him? Any argument in particular?

For one, his political views and especially his constitutionalism is more then correct, despite the scorn and snobbery of the modern Pharisees and Sadducees of society.

Link to comment

For one, his political views and especially his constitutionalism is more then correct, despite the scorn and snobbery of the modern Pharisees and Sadducees of society.

Well, we are talking about mormonism here. Any argument in particular you would like to mention?

Link to comment

Well, we are talking about mormonism here. Any argument in particular you would like to mention?

I'll let you pick one. ;)

Link to comment

I'll let you pick one. ;)

I can't think of any because I haven't seen any good one. Simply stating things without even trying to justify them is what Skousen did. I didn't want to say you mentioning him as a "Mormon Aquinas" seemed like a hilarious joke... but I guess I just said it.

Link to comment

I can't think of any because I haven't seen any good one. Simply stating things without even trying to justify them is what Skousen did. I didn't want to say you mentioning him as a "Mormon Aquinas" seemed like a hilarious joke... but I guess I just said it.

And quoting a philosopher like Nietzshe, who later had a big influence on Hitler's beliefs and in National Socialism, scores you brownie points?

To the typical secular 'intellectual' like you, Skousen's works are pathetic. Then again, the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles were also viewed in the same light by people like you in Biblical times.

Link to comment

And quoting a philosopher like Nietzshe, who later had a big influence on Hitler's beliefs and in National Socialism, scores you brownie points?

It's common knowledge that Hitler grossly misinterpreted Nietzsche. Just google it, man.

To the typical secular 'intellectual' like you, Skousen's works are pathetic.

They are.

Then again, the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles were also viewed in the same light by people like you in Biblical times.

Whatever. If you aren't going to contribute something interesting to the thread just go away.

Link to comment

If something "makes sense" then it has to do philosophy. I don't want to sound offensive but this shows a terrible lack of understanding about what philosophy is.

No offense taken.

You remind me of my wonderful AP English professor that I had. Yes, he would be sorely disappointed in me today, but back then I just rolleyes.gif my eyes when he would state that English was the "most important" subject to learn. College math teachers would say the same thing about math.

I also fully admit, you probably have a far greater superiority in regards to philosophy of religion. "Making sense" doesn't mean truth to me though.

...you don't think they do, at least, some philosophy? Have you ever watched General Conference? Have you taken a Critical Thinking class?

Maybe. Depends on your definition of philosophy and what branch they are referring to. I thoroughly enjoy President Benson's "political philosophy", but coming from a Prophet of the Lord, I wouldn't necessarily call it "philosophy".

I took a few undergraduate classes in philosophy and I can personally say I hated it with a passion. Nietzsche? His works were just controversial, not thought provoking and not impressive. Yet, for some reason people thought it was "cool" to quote from him.

In regards to philosophy of religion, not my cup of tea. I do enjoy other's ideas to stimulate thought (maybe this is why you referenced General Conference), but I prefer rational arguments from those who know truth, not ideas (hence my original post). Besides, in my short stint in life, I enjoy my own personal philosophy better than others'.

In regards to philosophy of science and medicine, I absolutely love and I will fully admit, I have more knowledge in that area than most. I guess they also have a "terrible lack of understanding". :)

Link to comment

No offense taken.

You remind me of my wonderful AP English professor that I had. Yes, he would be sorely disappointed in me today, but back then I just rolleyes.gif my eyes when he would state that English was the "most important" subject to learn. College math teachers would say the same thing about math.

I also fully admit, you probably have a far greater superiority in regards to philosophy of religion. "Making sense" doesn't mean truth to me though.

"Truth" is a funny thing. Forget about it and just change it for "the best I can discern". No one serious about these issues says "making sense" means one has arrived at "truth".

Maybe. Depends on your definition of philosophy and what branch they are referring to. I thoroughly enjoy President Benson's "political philosophy", but coming from a Prophet of the Lord, I wouldn't necessarily call it "philosophy".

Philosophy is an umbrella term for a bunch of issues and different methods of approaching them. They are clearly doing philosophy though very bad.

I took a few undergraduate classes in philosophy and I can personally say I hated it with a passion. Nietzsche? His works were just controversial, not thought provoking and not impressive. Yet, for some reason people thought it was "cool" to quote from him.

lol Professors want to make things more controversial than they sometimes are. One way to do that is to say (and put more emphasis on) the conclusion someone got to instead of the argument or reasons for it. To say that Berkeley thought material substance didn't exist sounds cool but the reasoning behind it is what's important. I'm sorry you had such a bad first encounter with philosophy but, seriously, that isn't what it is.

In regards to philosophy of religion, not my cup of tea. I do enjoy other's ideas to stimulate thought (maybe this is why you referenced General Conference), but I prefer rational arguments from those who know truth, not ideas (hence my original post). Besides, in my short stint in life, I enjoy my own personal philosophy better than others'.

All these things you've said are clear products of a bad way of doing philosophy or, if you don't like the term, of thinking about issues. "Other's ideas to stimulate thought" isn't philosophy proper. "Rational arguments from those who know 'truth' " are also ideas so that doesn't make sense.

In regards to philosophy of science and medicine, I absolutely love and I will fully admit, I probably have more knowledge in that area than most. I guess they also have a "terrible lack of understanding". smile.gif

Probably.

Link to comment

If there were/are any LDS Augustines or Aquinas they would have to be one of the Q. of 12 or 1st Pres. Anyone influencing the body of the church with new theological philosophies or ideas outside of the 15 head guys would be warned or even excommunicated. The church is set up in a way that only the 15 could make any progressive changes and even then, it would be claimed as revelation and not philosophy based or populistic thinking.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve isn't made up of theologians and philosophers. Yes, they receive revelation but the last time that happened was in 1978.

The church is a dynamic entity full of individuals with their own thoughts and ideas just like any other group of people. The teachings of church leaders are constantly changing and evolving with time. The church is also full of experts in many different fields of study who have ideas to contribute to mormon thought.

While revelation is an important principle of the church, I think we are all left on out own to use or god-given brains to think and figure things certain things out. And there will always be disagreement on certain issues.

Link to comment

It's common knowledge that Hitler grossly misinterpreted Nietzsche. Just google it, man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche_and_fascism

Hitler wasn't the only Nazi interested in him.

&

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Nietzsche.htm

They are.

Hey, I sometimes feel the same about some of your previous posts here.

Whatever. If you aren't going to contribute something interesting to the thread just go away.

That's for the mods to decide. But off the subject of Cleon's teachings, you ask if there's any 'serious' Mormon philosophers and theologians out there, judging by sites like these- http://smpt.org/index.html -for a start. I'd say 'yes', though they may not be of the Ivory Tower persuasion, however.

You could even ask DCP himself if there happen to be any 'serious' Mormon philosophers and/or theologians out there.

Truman Madsen is indeed is another good example of one too.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...