Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?

[Rivers]

The LDS church is very young but there are a people in the church's history I feel are great thinkers:

James E. Talmage (my favorite)

Bruce R McKonkie

Joseph Fielding Smith

Orson Pratt

Brigham Young

I don't think any of these guys compare to the people you mentioned but give the church more time. Perhaps some even greater philosophers will rise up.

[Avatar4321]

All the theology I need comes either at General Conference or from revelation.

[elguanteloko]

http://en.wikipedia....che_and_fascism

Hitler wasn't the only Nazi interested in him.

&

http://www.conspirac...y/Nietzsche.htm

I doubt you know much about Nietzsche's thought. All kinds of crazy people have been inspired by misunderstanding others. Christian fundamentalists are inspired by Christ all the time. Again, it is clear Hitler misinterpreted Nietzsche. No one doubts all kinds of horrible people misunderstood him just as all kinds of horrible people misunderstand Christ. Is that your argument against someone's ideas? "He inspired horrible people to do horrible things and, therefore, he is a horrible person or had horrible ideas." Get real, man.

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

good for you.

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.

I've asked you to provide ONE argument of Skousen and I ask you to bring one of Madsen now. What argument do you like of Madsen?

[elguanteloko]

All the theology I need comes either at General Conference or from revelation.

Theology is the RATIONAL study of dogmas of faith. Do you think the GA provide RATIONAL justification or RATIONAL insight into their positions? If not, then that's not theology.

[Robert F. Smith]

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).

I prefer Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy (1945), along with his famous debate with Father Copleston, S.J., in his Why I Am Not A Christian (1957). Russell trounced the good Jesuit.

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.

The problem may be that systematic theology is passe, and that the same thing may now have happened to analytic philosophy & theology. Whatever the case, we may want to consider first B. H. Roberts' Seventy's Course in Theology, 5 vols. (1907-1912), and then take up Blake Ostler's recent multi-volumed treatment of Mormon theology, and anything pertinent in between (including some excellent journal articles, which continue to come forth).

You might well have enjoyed the most recent conference of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at BYU. Were you there? The schedule of the April 7-9, 2011, meeting is listed at http://www.smpt.org/...ences_2011.html . Some of the sessions were quite stimulating (including generous and frank Q&A), as was the palaver during long lunch and dinner breaks. Perhaps you could present a paper next year?

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.

An "inner process" stands in need of outward criteria. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

"In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

"Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity" -- Nietzsche

"Nietzsche's primary critique of Christianity was that it had been platonized." -- Clark Goble

[elguanteloko]

The LDS church is very young but there are a people in the church's history I feel are great thinkers:

James E. Talmage (my favorite)

Bruce R McKonkie

Joseph Fielding Smith

Orson Pratt

Brigham Young

I don't think any of these guys compare to the people you mentioned but give the church more time. Perhaps some even greater philosophers will rise up.

I did recognized the Church being relatively young in the OP. Now, I've read all those you mentioned but I don't see much of theology in their writings but they just seem to be more expositions of dogmas of the faith. The few times I do see theological explications, however.... they're just horrible!

Perhaps I'm just missing something but, if you think that is the case, please tell me something they've said that shows me wrong.

[bookofmormontruth]

"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".

Of course, let us change truth to our own needs. Exactly why I don't take "philosophy" seriously. No offense, but it is usually to feel a void after rejecting G-d, not really impressive - just a big compensation.

"Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing". ~Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary

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

Example?

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.

I am not sorry. I will let my philosophy professor know that what he was teaching wasn't "philosophy".

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.

I am also bad in the subject of english, but just like philosophy, it won't lead me to exaltation so no loss on my end.

You really meant "the best I can concern" and not "making sense" right? Another reason why philosophy is a joke.

"To ridicule philosophy is really to philosophize". ~Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1670

Oops!

[elguanteloko]

I prefer Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy (1945), along with his famous debate with Father Copleston, S.J., in his Why I Am Not A Christian (1957). Russell trounced the good Jesuit.

Russell's book is just that, a book. Copleston's 9-volume is a much more rigorous approach and I don't see how anyone can dispute that, to be honest. But that's fine! On the debate, I don't agree with Copleston but he surely did a much better job than Russell. but we digress...

The problem may be that systematic theology is passe,

because people don't read it, that's why. many contemporary atheists are atheists more because of cheap propaganda than because they thought it through. If there was a time when good theology was needed that time is today. If anything, I'm making mormons a favor here.

and that the same thing may now have happened to analytic philosophy & theology.

analytic philosophy passe???? seriously?

Whatever the case, we may want to consider first B. H. Roberts' Seventy's Course in Theology, 5 vols. (1907-1912), and then take up Blake Ostler's recent multi-volumed treatment of Mormon theology, and anything pertinent in between (including some excellent journal articles, which continue to come forth).

I have to admit I haven't checked their books out but I will. I've seen videos of Ostler's talks and I don't find him very promising, but, what the heck, I'll give it a try.

You might well have enjoyed the most recent conference of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at BYU. Were you there? The schedule of the April 7-9, 2011, meeting is listed at http://www.smpt.org/...ences_2011.html . Some of the sessions were quite stimulating (including generous and frank Q&A), as was the palaver during long lunch and dinner breaks. Perhaps you could present a paper next year?

Sounds interesting! Though I'm no longer a believer I still attend Church once in a while. I guess, technically, I'm still an active member. I'll check that one out, too. Thanks a lot!

[elguanteloko]

Of course, let us change truth to our own needs.

Not to our own needs but to our own nature and capabilities. How will you recognize "truth" when you find it without first having an idea of what that truth is already? How will "truth" look like when you find it and how will you know you didn't find "truth" but something that is false but works well in certain contexts?

Exactly why I don't take "philosophy" seriously. No offense, but it is usually to feel a void after rejecting G-d, not really impressive - just a big compensation.

What can I say? Take a critical thinking class to begin with and notice why this is just bad thinking.

"Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing". ~Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary

...except to a better understanding of ourselves, the nature of science, the nature of logic, math, etc. Yeah, philosophy leads to "nothing"... nothing you care to think about.

Example?

I am not sorry. I will let my philosophy professor know that what he was teaching wasn't "philosophy".

I never said what they were teaching wasn't philosophy. How did you get that? I said that that was a horrible way of teaching philosophy. Makes it sound like crazy people saying crazy stuff when the reality is different. Again, what matters is the REASONS for a position, not just the conclusion.

I am also bad in the subject of english, but just like philosophy, it won't lead me to exaltation so no loss on my end.

Are you against playing basketball because it won't lead you to exaltation? Are you against doing mathematics because it won't lead you to exaltation? Are you against Chemistry or Biology because they won't lead you to exaltation? This mentality is just absurd!

You really meant "the best I can concern" and not "making sense" right? Another reason why philosophy is a joke.

I beg you, stop making a fool of yourself here.

"To ridicule philosophy is really to philosophize". ~Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1670

Oops!

Wait, Pascal said it? Then it must be true!

......

[blackstrap]

Philosophy- the love and pursuit of wisdom. Let us now debate the ideas of "love" and "wisdom" for a couple of millenia .That surely will save someone,somewhere,somehow. Meanwhile,people in Africa are starving.So are people all over the world,one way or another.

I doubt that there is such a thing as "bad" philosophy,except in the eye of the beholder.

[elguanteloko]

Philosophy- the love and pursuit of wisdom.

well, come on now, that's a caricature of philosophy. Philosophy is not the love of something but the topics one discusses.

Let us now debate the ideas of "love" and "wisdom" for a couple of millenia.

again, this is based on pure ignorance of what philosophy is from someone who clearly hasn't bothered to look it up in more depth. Not to mention, what you are doing right now falls very well within the area of philosophy.... but I'm sure you wouldn't know that.

That surely will save someone,somewhere,somehow. Meanwhile,people in Africa are starving.So are people all over the world,one way or another.

Oh, BTW! Ethics is part of philosophy. Again, not that you would know that...

Example:

I doubt that there is such a thing as "bad" philosophy,except in the eye of the beholder.

"I doubt there is such a thing as "bad" mathematics, except in the eye of the beholder." What you just said makes as little sense as that.

[bookofmormontruth]

Not to our own needs but to our own nature and capabilities. How will you recognize "truth" when you find it without first having an idea of what that truth is already? How will "truth" look like when you find it and how will you know you didn't find "truth" but something that is false but works well in certain contexts?

Your inconsistencies are showing.

The Gospel isn't complicated, I am sorry for those who make it so.

Are you just messing with me?

I never said what they were teaching wasn't philosophy. How did you get that? I said that that was a horrible way of teaching philosophy. Makes it sound like crazy people saying crazy stuff when the reality is different. Again, what matters is the REASONS for a position, not just the conclusion.

We probably had the same professor for he also loved Nietzsche and definitely didn't make the philosophers look "crazy". Ironically, he lost his faith too, but that is what happens when you embrace the ideas of men over scripture.

Are you against playing basketball because it won't lead you to exaltation? Are you against doing mathematics because it won't lead you to exaltation? Are you against Chemistry or Biology because they won't lead you to exaltation? This mentality is just absurd!

Not my mentality. Did you miss that I love the philosophy of science and medicine?

I am against anything that damns a person from exaltation. Like embracing the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture which I am sure will also be described as "absurd".

I beg you, stop making a fool of yourself here.

Ah yes, I am a "fool" in contrast to your superiority in what? Nietzsche? Ouch, that hurts!

Wait, Pascal said it? Then it must be true!

You actually meant "The best I can discern".

[elguanteloko]

Your inconsistencies are showing.

The Gospel isn't complicated, I am sorry for those who make it so.

Are you just messing with me?

We probably had the same professor for he also loved Nietzsche and definitely didn't make the philosophers look "crazy". Ironically, he lost his faith too, but that is what happens when you embrace the ideas of men over scripture.

Not my mentality. Did you miss that I love the philosophy of science and medicine?

I am against anything that damns a person from exaltation. Like embracing the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture which I am sure will also be described as "absurd".

Ah yes, I am a "fool" in contrast to your superiority in what? Nietzsche? Ouch, that hurts!

You actually meant "The best I can discern".

I'm really sorry you just can't see it. I really am. Again, take a critical thinking class or something.

Have a good one!

[bookofmormontruth]

I'm really sorry you just can't see it. I really am. Again, take a critical thinking class or something.

Have a good one!

Oh noes! What am I not seeing? Please do tell!

Does it have to do with Nietzsche and his ever so "brilliant" babble on "G-d is dead"? Or does it have to do with randomly posting a link with President Packer for the "example" that conveniently had no explanation on how you thought he was "bad".

And I deeply apologize I didn't take a "critical thinking class or something" before medical school to be at the same "philosophical level" as yourself. I have no idea what I was thinking! You know, that "critical thinking" I missed out on?

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds interesting! Though I'm no longer a believer I still attend Church once in a while. I guess, technically, I'm still an active member. I'll check that one out, too. Thanks a lot!

Non-Mormons present papers at SMPT, and no one asks whether someone is a believer. What is important is the substance of the arguments and observations made.

I think that you make a very positive contribution to the discussions on this Board -- where a good deal more reasoned argument is truly needed.

[zerinus]

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.

It seems to me that you are confusing philosophy with theology, which are two different things. Philosophy is speculative, and deals with possibilities and assumptions, not certainties. Theology deals with certainty, and is based squarely on revelation. In traditional Christian theology that revelation consists of the Bible (plus Sacred Tradition if you are a Catholic). It aims at making deductive and inductive inferences from those “revealed” truths; and since the premises it is based on are considered to be certain, the logical inferences derived from them are also presented as certain truths.

If you were a Muslim, that revelation would consist of the Koran and the Hadith. Islam has a very elaborate theology based on those revelatory claims; and its inferences are presented as certain truths, as it is in Christian theology.

In Mormonism you can guess what revelatory claims it theology should be based on; but in answer to your question as to whether such a book or author exists in Mormonism, the answer is yes. The book is called the Lectures on Faith, and it was written by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is not a complete treatment of LDS theology however; but it is enough to give you an idea of what a completed project should look like. You can buy it, or read it online, or download a PDF copy of it here.

[Rivers]

I did recognized the Church being relatively young in the OP. Now, I've read all those you mentioned but I don't see much of theology in their writings but they just seem to be more expositions of dogmas of the faith. The few times I do see theological explications, however.... they're just horrible!

Perhaps I'm just missing something but, if you think that is the case, please tell me something they've said that shows me wrong.

Like I said, these guys don't compare to real philosophers and theologians. Maybe you could be the first great mormon thinker.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I think Joseph Smith Jr. would qualify as the greatest "Mormon" Theologian. Followed by Bruce R. McConkie. That being said the LDS are structurally different than the Catholics are, so we don't rely on "serious" thinkers to make our theological arguments. Who knows? Given 2000 more years maybe more will develop.

[Deborah]

I've always thought that Truman Madsen was a deep and serious thinker of theology.

The title is serious Mormon Theology. I think we have lots of people who deal with that but then the OP talks about philosophy. There is a difference. Philosophy represents to me man's attempt to explain theology.

Elder Cook had this to say at the March 2003 Liahona/Ensign E. Cook

Today there is a tendency among some of us to “look beyond the mark” rather than to maintain a testimony of gospel basics. We do this when we substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration, or elevate rules over doctrine. Avoiding these behaviors will help us avoid the theological blindness and stumbling that Jacob described.

Some people seem to be embarrassed by the simplicity of the Savior’s message. They want to add complexity and even obscurity to the truth to make it more intellectually challenging or more compatible with current academic trends. The Apostasy occurred in part because of this problem. The early Christians adopted the Greek philosophical traditions, trying to reconcile their own beliefs with the existing culture. The historian Will Durant wrote: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life.”

It's fine to pursue philosophy as an interest, and I've always been interested in it, and I do think it helps to understand where other people are coming from. But I'd much rather have a deep theologian like Madsen than a philosopher who feels the need to intellectualize and justify why his theology is correct. Madsen was a true scholar and his lectures on Joseph Smith and the Savior show a profound understanding of who they were and what they did.

[Mudcat]

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.

Joseph Smith, is the only one that comes to mind.

If a person doesn't have good reason to accept that notion that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then I suppose you have to ask yourself the question. Well what does that make Joseph Smith?

I think the guy was a brilliant theologian. Unlike other Christian theologians, who seem to mold their theology from the same lump of Scriptural clay, for the most part. Smith comes onto the scene with fresh material and claims of Prophetic authority from God, that allow for impromptu and dynamic changes in the paradigm. It's brilliant.

I don't agree with his methodology for expressing his systematic theology, but removing that issue, the end product of his teachings... "Mormonism". Well even though I disagree with quite a bit of LDS teachings on things. I have to admit, that if religions could be considered art forms. "Mormonism" is a work of art in it's own rite and Joseph Smith was certainly a virtuoso.

I doubt you'll find any LDS who agree with my assessment..

But as a person who isn't LDS but has studied the religion for a bit now. This is the conclusion I have arrived at.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

To me, it boils down to either JS was who he said he was, or he was a fraudster. He was no fraudster.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

To me, it boils down to either JS was who he said he was, or he was a fraudster. He was no fraudster.

I get that TSS, I am just on the other side of the issue.

I suppose in that respect, I can only think there was a bit deception on his part to push the concept of "Mormonism", thus my disagreement with his methodology.

Not sparing the fact, doesn't detract from the fact he was a theological wiz of sorts.

I don't mind separating the method of production from the product and making a value judgement based on product alone. I think if more people had a willingness to do it, we might all stand a better chance of understanding others.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I agree. The top-down transmission of new thought is a revelatory claim. Historically, it hasn't been very revolutionary but more a repetative lecture. It's like the LDS church is comfortable with an archaic and worn out style of theology. It's almost like a bad pair of shoes with holes in the bottom and causing blisters.

[ELF1024]

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.

I'm not sure who said it, but someone on the board at one point said that Mormons do not have theologians. We have a great many historians, archeologists, and linguistic experts; but no theologians. I guess they were attempting to say that there wasn't a need for theologians; and the others could suffice.

[HiJolly]

Theology is the RATIONAL study of dogmas of faith. Do you think the GA provide RATIONAL justification or RATIONAL insight into their positions? If not, then that's not theology.

Both theology and philosophy are useless in understanding what God is and what God does. I suppose it can help us to understand more than if we didn't think about it at all, but fails in epic fashion when compared to sharing the mind of God, even if only for a short time. Or experiencing His Glory.

One should never point to rationality as the greatest aspect of humanity. It is not, from several different points of view.

HiJolly