Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?

[elguanteloko]

Both theology and philosophy are useless in understanding what God is and what God does.

Is "Doctrines of Faith" useless in understanding what God is and what God does? Doesn't the nature and workings of faith imply a certain nature with which we approach God and that at the same time limits us? What is the nature of this relationship? What you are saying is so wrong it can only be a manifestation of ignorance or of despise to serious thinking. Both are quite bad.

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.

This is no different than saying science can't help you in your experience of smelling a rose or looking at a scenery while on a train. Generally, there is less to enjoy of X if you know less about X than if you knew more about it. Take the time to think about that for a moment.

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

I don't know why you are going to the absurd as if I, or theologians, said that all that mattered (or what mattered the most) was "rationality". That's ludicrous. When we take a look at the beauty of a great painting we enjoy it... but that's not all that can be enjoyed about it. Understanding how the different painting techniques played a part and how and why the painter decided to use them is a whole world of enjoyment that opens up. To rationally study architecture and the mathematics used doesn't take anything from enjoying the beautiful building made.

[elguanteloko]

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.

That's unbelievable. All those you mentioned do theology but very shallowly. I can do math but very shallowly, too. Having theologians and having mathematicians is better. The vast majority of ex-mormons I've come in contact with could have easily stayed in the Church if it wasn't for the sophomoric answers one is presented with.

ETA: if anything, I think raising the level of discourse would also create more demand for smarter and more thoughtful general authorities. However, the lack of critical thinking in Church authorities is the first enemy to this situation changing.

[ELF1024]

That's unbelievable. All those you mentioned do theology but very shallowly. I can do math but very shallowly, too. Having theologians and having mathematicians is better. The vast majority of ex-mormons I've come in contact with could have easily stayed in the Church if it wasn't for the sophomoric answers one is presented with.

Sounds like I've found the axe your grinding... so what questions have been answered poorly for you?

Additional:

Who are some of the General Authorities you have liked?

[elguanteloko]

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

Very good answer, seriously! One needs only read him to notice how different his approach to the dogmas of faith was.

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?

Here's the thing, Mudcat. We don't seem to choose what we are going to believe for the most part. Can you, right now, choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Not just state it but believe it. I can't, brother. There wasn't a time I "chose" to stop believing in God and the Church, I just stopped believing and stopped finding it convincing.

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.

Indeed his was a curious case. He was a good thinker and claiming new stuff was coming definitely helped flexibility-wise.

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.

well... he was good.

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

haha! I happen to know some that would agree.

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.

I know is not the first time I get this wrong but I thought you were a member. IIRC, I incorrectly took you for a member before.

[Deborah]

ETA: if anything, I think raising the level of discourse would also create more demand for smarter and more thoughtful general authorities. However, the lack of critical thinking in Church authorities is the first enemy to this situation changing.

This is an assumption on your part. Just because the GA's stick to the basics doesn't mean they aren't thoughtful or critical thinkers. I've heard some pretty thoughtful things from them, but if you don't like what they have to say you will probably think they aren't very thoughtful.

[consiglieri]

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

* * *

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

Count me as one LDS who agrees with your assessment.

Brigham Young attempted to fill the revelatory shoes of Joseph Smith, but was rebuffed by the majority of the membership (including one member of the Quorum of the Twelve) in the attempt.

Since then, we have had no general authority theologians, but only scriptorians.

I believe Blake Ostler is making an important contribution to alter this picture.

But on the other hand, I agree with Dan Peterson's observation that, traditionally, Mormons do not "do" theology, but instead tell stories.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HiJolly]

Is "Doctrines of Faith" useless in understanding what God is and what God does? Doesn't the nature and workings of faith imply a certain nature with which we approach God and that at the same time limits us? What is the nature of this relationship? What you are saying is so wrong it can only be a manifestation of ignorance or of despise to serious thinking. Both are quite bad.

Yes, both of those things are bad. I don't think I'm guilty of either.

What are you referring to when you say "Doctrines of Faith"? Capitalized, quotes, but I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

The *practice* of faith is very useful in these things. Joseph Smith defined faith not as some kind of belief, but rather as a gift from God that comes to those who choose to obey and follow Him. Is that theology? Where is the reasoning that would make it so? How many people use that definition of faith when they speak of it? Sam Harris did not in his book The End of Faith. Are you?

On your second question, wow. I think, if I understand the question correctly, that yes, the "nature and workings of faith imply a certain nature", but where is the reason you spoke of previously in those implications? And I'm curious what you are referring to as "limits". Remember, you were the one yelling "REASON" over and over...

What I'm saying is that reason usually implies some sort of logical process, where you have starting assumptions and statements of fact that are related together in such a way that conclusions can be drawn not by observation, but by logical inference. When it comes to God, Heaven, judgement, resurrection, salvation and the like, then the assumptions anyone makes are doubtful at best, in terms of being accurate enough to use in the logical chain of reasonable thought. Garbage in, garbage out.

To me, it's like using a fork to change your oil filter on your car. A complete category error.

Experience and personal, subjective observation, however, are the exact tools to use in understanding God, faith, and much more in the realm of religion. Do you disagree? Is God not personal?

This is no different than saying science can't help you in your experience of smelling a rose or looking at a scenery while on a train. Generally, there is less to enjoy of X if you know less about X than if you knew more about it. Take the time to think about that for a moment.

Getting a bit patronizing, aren't we?

I don't know why you are going to the absurd as if I, or theologians, said that all that mattered (or what mattered the most) was "rationality". That's ludicrous. When we take a look at the beauty of a great painting we enjoy it... but that's not all that can be enjoyed about it. Understanding how the different painting techniques played a part and how and why the painter decided to use them is a whole world of enjoyment that opens up. To rationally study architecture and the mathematics used doesn't take anything from enjoying the beautiful building made.

Of course not. Do you want to understand God only through the use of theology, philosophy and reason? It kinda sounded like it, there for a minute. Maybe I just got the wrong impression.

HiJolly

[zerinus]

Here's the thing, Mudcat. We don't seem to choose what we are going to believe for the most part. Can you, right now, choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Not just state it but believe it. I can't, brother. There wasn't a time I "chose" to stop believing in God and the Church, I just stopped believing and stopped finding it convincing.

It may be that we cannot choose to believe; but we must carry some responsibility for failing to believe in revealed truth, otherwise we could not be condemned for not believing. I believe the ability to believe in divine or revealed truth is partially a gift from God. If it wasn’t, we would have no way of discriminating between true revelatory claims and false ones; and no one could be condemned for believing in a false religion, nor deserve special credit for believing in a true one. We would simply have no way of knowing which is which. However, I said it is partially a gift from God because it does not force us to believe; but our agency is preserved in the process by allowing us the option of choosing to believe. So there is an element of choice involved in belief as well. The gift consists of a certain spiritual light that one receives, that bears witness to one’s spirit of its truth. The rest is up to the individual. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, he will than take that initial light further, until that initial spark of light he received is turned into a bright testimony and a conviction; otherwise he will quench it, and it will not go any further. That is where the condemnation begins. The Lord has expressed it in these words:

D&C 93

:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they

receive not the light

.

32 And every man whose spirit

receiveth not the light

is under condemnation.

Revealed truth, authoritatively presented and declared, will always be accompanied by an element of that light, which breeds conviction. It is the failure to heed that light that causes one to disbelieve, and brings one under condemnation.

You say that at some point you stopped believing in the Church, and even in God. I presume that before it you did believe. Then something happened that caused you to stop believing. I have no way of knowing what that could be; but experience teaches us that that is nearly always caused by a transgression of some kind—even if it means nothing more than neglecting your prayers, scripture studies, and church attendance.

ETA: if anything, I think raising the level of discourse would also create more demand for smarter and more thoughtful general authorities. However, the lack of critical thinking in Church authorities is the first enemy to this situation changing.

Now I think that is a rather presumptuous comment to make for someone who admittedly no longer believes in the Church, and apparently, not even in God any more. You are trying to tell the Mormons what is good for them! I don’t think that as an unbeliever you are in a position to make such a judgement at all. If you are seriously interested in knowing whether the Church is true to not, I suggest you try to take advice from the Church, rather than give advice to the Church; and if you are not seriously interested in finding out the truth about the Church, then you would be better off taking your theological advice somewhere else, because I don’t think the Church will be interested.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think you are totally right on this one.

I think that Protestants in general, have a better comprehension of this than we do because they are, pretty frankly, followers of men they see as imperfect yet inspired- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc., whereas perhaps we expect our "prophets" to be perfect, or because of the title, at least others do.

Yet we know that the "prophets of old" were not perfect either.

But I also find it ironic that we are often attacked by Protestants who find fault with Joseph, while their own leaders and founders were far from perfect themselves, and it appears they cannot see that.

Maybe you can shed some light on that?

But the bottom line is, as Protestants understand, "the proof is in the pudding", a very pragmatic attitude indeed. This is echoed in their view that practically any church is "right" if it preaches "Christ crucified" and the Bible.

Any church except ours, that is!

[mfbukowski]

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

I agree, but there are issues like the perceived conflict between science and religion which could drive members from the church because they have no theoretical framework from which to analyze the alleged "conflicts".

I would say that is really the main question- with offshoots resulting from, in my opinion, too literal an interpretation of the scriptures so people end up asking about Adam and evolution.

But I think that people even take science too literally, and would recommend a healthy does of Kuhn and others of his ilk, to everyone. I think everyone should at least be conversant in these theories or points of view.

[HiJolly]

I agree, but there are issues like the perceived conflict between science and religion which could drive members from the church because they have no theoretical framework from which to analyze the alleged "conflicts".

I would say that is really the main question- with offshoots resulting from, in my opinion, too literal an interpretation of the scriptures so people end up asking about Adam and evolution.

But I think that people even take science too literally, and would recommend a healthy does of Kuhn and others of his ilk, to everyone. I think everyone should at least be conversant in these theories or points of view.

You're right. I am still trying to get to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions...

[mfbukowski]

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.

Count me as one.

We haven't started to plumb the depths of the notion that God is a Man. It could revolutionize the world and fits very well with humanistic philosophy, which is still arguably the primary point of view of the 21st century; as I have said, the notion that human beings create their own worlds can be seen in all of postmodernism, and it permeates our culture.

Why do you think few would agree with your assessment of Joseph?

[mfbukowski]

You're right. I am still trying to get to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions...

I think it's important because it is not just a theory- it is a way of thinking about everything- and it is pretty accessible to those even unacquainted with philosophy. It's as much a methodology as a theory.

[Nathair/|\]

Count me as one.

We haven't started to plumb the depths of the notion that God is a Man. It could revolutionize the world and fits very well with humanistic philosophy, which is still arguably the primary point of view of the 21st century; as I have said, the notion that human beings create their own worlds can be seen in all of postmodernism, and it permeates our culture.

Why do you think few would agree with your assessment of Joseph?

As a corollary, I think the idea that men are gods has massive potential to transform how we see ourselves and our capabilities, our relationships with others and our environment, etc. C.S. Lewis and others have worked with this concept, but I don't think anyone in modern times has done more with it than the Prophet.

[Calm]

.

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.

It would make discussions easier.

Religion as an art form may be something new to think about (haven't come across it before at least) but Art as Religion (or expressing one's religion through art) is a longstanding tradition, probably as long as religion so it seems to me perfectly acceptable to examine or think of Joseph Smith the Artist.....a vast improvement on "Conartist" in fact.

I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, defining that language as a form of art makes sense to me especially as I don't see it as a random production, but one aimed at creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future.

[mfbukowski]

As a corollary, I think the idea that men are gods has massive potential to transform how we see ourselves and our capabilities, our relationships with others and our environment, etc. C.S. Lewis and others have worked with this concept, but I don't think anyone in modern times has done more with it than the Prophet.

Agreed! I was coming from that whole post-modern pov in a general way as a Pragmatist while working on my Masters when I found Mormonism, and in addition to getting wonked over the head by the spirit- saw instinctively where this could go.

It just needs to get there faster imo!

[mfbukowski]

It would make discussions easier.

Religion as an art form may be something new to think about (haven't come across it before at least) but Art as Religion (or expressing one's religion through art) is a longstanding tradition, probably as long as religion so it seems to me perfectly acceptable to examine or think of Joseph Smith the Artist.....a vast improvement on "Conartist" in fact.

I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, defining that language as a form of art makes sense to me especially as I don't see it as a random production, but one aimed at creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future.

Absolutely positively!

And no one complains about art being in conflict with science!!! It is like saying that a Picasso "doesn't correspond to reality"!

I really like that analogy!

Edit: In fact, check my new siggy!

[bookofmormontruth]

It would make discussions easier.

Religion as an art form may be something new to think about (haven't come across it before at least) but Art as Religion (or expressing one's religion through art) is a longstanding tradition, probably as long as religion so it seems to me perfectly acceptable to examine or think of Joseph Smith the Artist.....a vast improvement on "Conartist" in fact.

I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, defining that language as a form of art makes sense to me especially as I don't see it as a random production, but one aimed at creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future.

You definitely shouldn't take those "naps".

[Calm]

Edit: In fact, check my new siggy!

Quoted in someone's sig, I think that's a first for me. Now I can relax and goof off since I can count this as my accomplishment for the day.

[Calm]

You definitely shouldn't take those "naps".

My brain does get a little funky when sleep deprived, lol.

[Nathair/|\]

Quoted in someone's sig, I think that's a first for me. Now I can relax and goof off since I can count this as my accomplishment for the day.

Do you mind if I make it my facebook status?

[Calm]

Do you mind if I make it my facebook status?

I have no idea what you are talking about, but sure.

[mfbukowski]

Quoted in someone's sig, I think that's a first for me. Now I can relax and goof off since I can count this as my accomplishment for the day.

I love it!

In fact that is an area very much explored by John Dewey, one of my idols!

[Calm]

I love it!

In fact that is an area very much explored by John Dewey, one of my idols!

Goofing off? Should be something very much explored by everyone, in my opinion.

Actually your comments about language recently in various threads got me thinking about it and playing around with it more in my own wee mind so you can claim I derived the thought from you...at least in part....if you want.

[cksalmon]

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.

Perhaps it's a bit simplistic, but, in its essence, philosophy can productively be seen as a general guidebook for how to think straight, to quote Antony Flew. That is, how to get from point A to point B along a path one's interlocutors can track. Some philosophy is speculative. Some theology is assumption-based. (If you're suspicious of the morass that is post-Enlightenment Continental philosophy, I share your concern.)

It seems to me that you may be confusing presuppositions with theology. The former informs the latter, but a useful distinction can be made between them.

Theology ... aims at making deductive and inductive inferences from those “revealed” truths;

Right. And those are part and parcel of the philosophical programme, or at least of analytic philosophy.

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.

But, that's not at all an obvious conclusion in light of the available evidence. For one example of a conclusion against your own, see Alan Phipp's 1977 BYU Master's Thesis: The Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study. On his study, Rigdon's print is found throughout LoF, though not exclusively, and his study does attribute primary authorship of several, certainly not all, lectures to Joseph Smith as well.

I think LoF can be classed as a species of philosophical theology, no matter how well or poorly one thinks it executed.

It is not a complete treatment of LDS theology however;

Indeed, and while McConkie spoke of portions of LoF as "eternal scripture," the general consensus of LDS history seems to have been that LoF is theologically deficient and decidedly non-revelatory in nature, concerned with general principles, but not commendable as a doctrinal work.

but it is enough to give you an idea of what a completed project should look like.

But, at least on some accounts (and on mine), the reason its D was excised from the D&C was the very fact that is was demonstrably incomplete. So, it seems to be a pretty poor example of a completed project.

cks