We Need Mormon Theologians?

[BCSpace]

Who needs a theologian when you have Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?

What would be their purpose? Second guessing the revelations of God?

Were not the scribes and pharasees theologians? Look how they treated prophets, seers and revelators...

The Bible stating that interpretation is not private absolutely forbids the notion of theologians or exegesis or even Right Dividers of Systemic LDS Theology with any power to determine doctrine. Any one of these can only point it out.

Edited April 25, 2013 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps I should ask, how are we defining theologians?

Guys who look at religion through a philosophical lens.

[mfbukowski]

I think theologians would be helpful not to create doctrine or even to interpret it for church members...though just like any other member who has a unique experience and thus perception of scripture and doctrine and faith, theologians could provide their own unique POV to help us look at our own faith in new ways, but I see their main role as providing another line of communication with nonmembers to help create a shared language to discuss our faith with them so they can come to understand the depth of it and thus not dismiss it so easily.

As usual, we are in complete accord!

[ERayR]

Guys who look at religion through a philosophical lens.

OH good some more of you guys that us country kids can't understand.

[Avatar4321]

Guys who look at religion through a philosophical lens.

Any philosophical lens or a specific one?

If that's the definition, im not sure we need any. Let's just learn what the Lord says for ourselves by studying the scriptures, listening to those He has called, and prayer so that the Holy Spirit and ministering angels can teach us.

[mfbukowski]

The Bible stating that interpretation is not private absolutely forbids the notion of theologians or exegesis or even Right Dividers of Systemic LDS Theology with any power to determine doctrine. Any one of these can only point it out.

And yet we believe it "insofar as it is 'translated' (interpreted) correctly". There is no getting around interpretation. And of course, as we know, our prophets seers and revelators always agree, right??

This board would not even exist if our doctrine was clear and consistent and did not require interpretation, and if all the leaders had never contradicted each other. Can anyone say Bruce R. McConkie?

I think it is great that we are a true and living church and can actually disagree on these matters!

But to pretend there is some "correct interpretation" given by our prophets totally ignores history. It's putting your head in the sand.

We all get to interpret it for ourselves. That makes us all theologians. The only problem is that some are trained in these issues and some are not.

That doesn't make the trained ones "right"- just more likely to be consistent and see the bigger picture of how the epistemology fits the metaphysics etc.

[mfbukowski]

OK I have put my dos centavos in here. Everybody knows where I stand. I could repeat it all 900 times but that is hardly productive. Time to lurk.

.

[BCSpace]

And yet we believe it "insofar as it is 'translated' (interpreted) correctly". There is no getting around interpretation.

Of course. But again that is the purview of the prophets.

The doctrine is the interpretation of scripture or, in the case of the JST, we get scripture itself. Also, consider how the Book of Mormon describes Biblical corruption since you brought up AoF 1:8. It's not a corruption of what is there now but a corruption of what is missing. And as it turns out, we can accept virtually all of what the Bible says even without the JST to help.

Romney lost his first bid for the GOP candidacy by not understanding this. A couple of days before the Iowa primary when his lead in the polls was large but his Christian base was soft, he was asked regarding the Bible, "Do you believe every word of this book?". He launched into a long winded explaination including "as far as it is translated correctly" when all he needed to say was "Yes!". I daresay his loss of Iowa and the overall candidacy can be traced from that one incident.

And of course, as we know, our prophets seers and revelators always agree, right??

Only on matters of doctrine which subsequently get published officially.

This board would not even exist if our doctrine was clear and consistent and did not require interpretation, and if all the leaders had never contradicted each other.

The Church's definition of doctrine is WAY too clear for that. The reason is because people are unbelieving and/or have agendas beyond the doctrine or the doctrine gets in the way.

Can anyone say Bruce R. McConkie?

Why would this be an example? His main work Mormon Doctrine was never considered doctrine by the Church. In fact he was asked not to publish it at all or least not use the ostentacious title that he did.

I think it is great that we are a true and living church and can actually disagree on these matters!

We can. But we can't say this or that is not doctrine when the Church says it is.

But to pretend there is some "correct interpretation" given by our prophets totally ignores history. It's putting your head in the sand

There is only that which has not been interpreted. Relative to the Church, if a doctrine turns out to be wrong or will be changed, it is not up to you or me to determine or to do so.

We all get to interpret it for ourselves. That makes us all theologians. The only problem is that some are trained in these issues and some are not.

Yep. And to the degree our intepretation matches the Church's intepretation is the degree of our own apostasy. I myself have listed certain doctrines/policies I disagree with. But I don't try to hide the truth and protect myself by claiming they are not doctrines.

That doesn't make the trained ones "right"- just more likely to be consistent and see the bigger picture of how the epistemology fits the metaphysics etc.

Sure. To the degree they deviate from the Church's interpretation is the degree they are wrong. One has to see the Church as the ultimate theologian else it's truth claims are false. However, there is plenty of room to hold forth on issues the Church has not addressed.

Edited April 25, 2013 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

I would consider a Terryl Givens a mormon theologian. Or are we talking about people with actual degrees in theology?

We have some theologians on this board. Have you noticed?

There are very few trained theologians who are also Mormons. Elder Holland's son David has recently been appointed as an asst professor at Harvard Divinity School. Most Mormons who also happen to be serious theologians come from other areas of specialization, as with Givens. Some are members of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology http://www.smpt.org (I've attended some of their annual meetings, and even saw Terryl Givens' daughter deliver a very fine paper. I even gave a paper at their last meeting), and they publish a journal called Element. Others hold seminars and publish the results: The Mormon Theology Seminar, for example, has done some excellent work, some of which has been published by Salt Press -- now part of the Maxwell Institute, which may tackle theology also.

Grant Hardy has a serious book in preparation on Book of Mormon theology, while Blake Ostler has produced a multi-volume work on Mormon Theology (considered to be very serious stuff). There has been no dearth of discussion in Dialogue and Sunstone on theology over the years. However, the LDS Church is unlikely ever to hire professional theologians or to sponsor a holy order of theologians like the Jesuits. Some people feel that it is just that sort of thing which led to the Great Apostasy, and nobody wants a repeat of that debacle.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Libs]

Joanna Brooks is concerned about women and the priesthood. She recently thought out loud:

It is daunting to look at the faith that you love and witness the accumulation of 183 years of non-systematic doctrinal accumulation. By which I mean that one of the downsides of not having a professional clergy is that Mormonism does not recognize a systematic, coherent theology. Yes, people. In this, I envy Catholics and Jews and other faiths who make space for professional theologians and scholars of theology trained in the discipline. I want a Mormon

Jaroslav Pelikan

. I want Mormon Jesuits. I really do.

She then added:

The problems come when we mistake human impulses and dispositions for Godly intentions and assume that what seems familiar and right to us is in fact essentially reflective of reality.

For example, we now hear a great deal of talk in connection with priesthood about gender complementarity–the idea that the spiritual work of mothering is the intended complement to priesthood offices. This idea is spoken as if it is gospel truth–self-evident.

But is there one scrap of evidence in A) canonized scripture B) canonized revelation C) the words of Jesus Christ or D) the words of Joseph Smith that supports the notion that motherhood is a spiritual office that is the complement of priesthood?

That last paragraph is missing something. Can you guess what it is?

I think the word you're looking for is "authority". There is no complimentary (male/female) authority in the church. God's authority is given through the priesthood (not motherhood), and that is the sole domain of men.

[CASteinman]

I think the word you're looking for is "authority". There is no complimentary (male/female) authority in the church. God's authority is given through the priesthood (not motherhood), and that is the sole domain of men.

I don't want this to come off as though I was somehow disagreeing with you, because I don't feel like I am. I would say though that there is something of God's authority that comes with Motherhood. Also with Fatherhood, but somehow (and I don't THINK this is merely cultural) more of this authority comes with Motherhood.

I think that key authority that seems to be delegated to men is the authority to administer the affairs of the Church and to conduct the majority of the ordinances of the Gospel.

[Avatar4321]

Is it' God's authority that comes with Motherhood? or merely Parental authority?

I suppose one could argue that with the sealing God is imparting authority to both parents over their children. Is that what we are talking about here?

i will also point out that the commandments say "Honor thy father and thy mother." If only one had authority in the family, that would be an odd commandment.

[CASteinman]

Is it' God's authority that comes with Motherhood? or merely Parental authority?

I suppose one could argue that with the sealing God is imparting authority to both parents over their children. Is that what we are talking about here?

i will also point out that the commandments say "Honor thy father and thy mother." If only one had authority in the family, that would be an odd commandment.

I like your comments. I think it is God's authority and that it is Parental Authority.

[Bernard Gui]

Nibley seems appropriate:

http://maxwellinstit...d=54&chapid=489

This is well illustrated in the case of the Lord himself. We will recall that he was accused by the learned of blasphemy for claiming tangible contact with the Father in heaven who, he insisted, was not just his symbolic but his real Father. Now the men who opposed Jesus were learned in the scripture: He said, "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain" (Luke 9:22), specifically singling out as his opponents the most learned segment of the society. These men could cite scripture for everything they did or said, and in all things the scripture was their authority. Of Christ, on the other hand, we read: "They were astonished at his doctrine [didaché—way of teaching]: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1:22). What he spoke was scripture. And the same holds for every true prophet. That fact is admitted by the whole Christian world, which is willing to accept as holy writ any syllable that can be shown to be the genuine utterance of an Apostle, no matter how trivial the matter discussed, as, for example, when Paul asks Timothy to bring him his books and overcoat.

There is much to indicate that the Corinthians were altogether too much taken up with the reputations and opinions of scholars—a weakness which ultimately proved fatal. Paul took them to task for this in the beginning of his first letter to them:

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer [syzetetés—we would say committee-member] of this world . . . ?

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called" (1 Corinthians 1:20—21, 25—26).

And Paul explains that this is done so "that, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord," not being beholden to any man or to any human instruction. The attitude of the early church on this subject is well-expressed in a remarkable passage from Clement, one of the oldest fragments of genuine early Christian literature in existence, as it has been preserved for us by Eusebius:

"Those inspired and, one might truly say, divine men, by which I mean the Apostles of Christ, having purified their lives to the highest degree and adorned their minds with every virtue, spoke only the common tongue; but they were emboldened by the possession of a supernatural power, which had been bestowed upon them as a gift by the Savior himself. They neither knew nor made any effort to know anything about the art of persuasion or skill with words as taught in the schools. The only power they ever made use of was the assurance of the Holy Ghost and the miraculous power of Christ operating through them, by which they preached the kingdom of God throughout the world. They gave little thought to writing anything down. What they did they did with the aid of a power beyond that of men. Paul, for example, the most skillful speaker and the best educated man of them all, left nothing in writing but a few extremely short letters; yet he was in a position to utter marvelous things without number, as one having actually been in contact with visions of the third heaven, caught up even to God's paradise, where he was deemed worthy to hear unutterable things. But the other disciples of our Savior were not without experience of these things, either: the twelve Apostles, the Seventy disciples, and countless others under their instruction."

Edited April 25, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Libs]

I don't want this to come off as though I was somehow disagreeing with you, because I don't feel like I am. I would say though that there is something of God's authority that comes with Motherhood. Also with Fatherhood, but somehow (and I don't THINK this is merely cultural) more of this authority comes with Motherhood.

I think that key authority that seems to be delegated to men is the authority to administer the affairs of the Church and to conduct the majority of the ordinances of the Gospel.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but that's why there is no complementary "authority" within the church. Priesthood holds all of the authority. They may council with women, but the final authority is always theirs.

I don't think parental authority is quite the same. It is not officially conferred and it's very narrow in scope.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That won't do. You aren't a proper theologian.

Could you define what a "proper theologian"?

[CASteinman]

Could you define what a "proper theologian"?

Well, based upon her ideals, apparently you must be:

• A polyglot
  
• An historian of Religious History
  
• Have a degree in Theology or Religious Studies, preferably a PhD.
  
• Write a scholarly book every year
  
• Be a Dean of a Graduate School of Theology at an Ivy League University
  
• Receive multiple Human Studies Awards
  
• Be willing to change your religion over time
  

Plus hold some significant ecclesiastical position -- which you leave to change churches.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, based upon her ideals, apparently you must be:

• A polyglot
  
• An historian of Religious History
  
• Have a degree in Theology or Religious Studies, preferably a PhD.
  
• Write a scholarly book every year
  
• Be a Dean of a Graduate School of Theology at an Ivy League University
  
• Receive multiple Human Studies Awards
  
• Be willing to change your religion over time
  

Plus hold some significant ecclesiastical position -- which you leave to change churches.

Too bad won't change my religion, even with a book deal.

[teddyaware]

Joanna Brooks is concerned about women and the priesthood. She recently thought out loud:

It is daunting to look at the faith that you love and witness the accumulation of 183 years of non-systematic doctrinal accumulation. By which I mean that one of the downsides of not having a professional clergy is that Mormonism does not recognize a systematic, coherent theology. Yes, people. In this, I envy Catholics and Jews and other faiths who make space for professional theologians and scholars of theology trained in the discipline. I want a Mormon

Jaroslav Pelikan

. I want Mormon Jesuits. I really do.

She then added:

The problems come when we mistake human impulses and dispositions for Godly intentions and assume that what seems familiar and right to us is in fact essentially reflective of reality.

For example, we now hear a great deal of talk in connection with priesthood about gender complementarity–the idea that the spiritual work of mothering is the intended complement to priesthood offices. This idea is spoken as if it is gospel truth–self-evident.

But is there one scrap of evidence in A) canonized scripture B) canonized revelation C) the words of Jesus Christ or D) the words of Joseph Smith that supports the notion that motherhood is a spiritual office that is the complement of priesthood?

That last paragraph is missing something. Can you guess what it is?

I've only just now come to this thread for the first time. In answer to your question, I would add the following to Brooks' list of sources for evidence: E) prophets and apostles who've served since the death of Joseph Smith.

In my opinion, I think it's likely Brooks knowingly left that last category off her list because she knew its inclusion would undermine the strength of her position. This omission betrays what I believe is at least some disdain she harbors toward the current leaders of the Church. The actual degree of intensity of that disdain is not for me to judge, but I believe at least some resentment resides in her heart.

To me, Brooks seems to be an arc-steadier par excellence. Her deep yearning for an entrenched intellectual elite, comprised of LDS "scholars" trained and disciplined in the world's methods of arriving at "truth," smacks of the kind of shenanigans perpetrated by the worldly wise who caused the the Great Apostasy. You know, the folks who replaced the indispensible principle of revelation from God through living prophets with the philosophies of men mingled with scripture?

Anymore bashing sermons and you will be out of the thread.

Edited April 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[Jude2]

Who needs a theologian when you have Prophets, Seers, and Revelators?

What would be their purpose? Second guessing the revelations of God?

Were not the scribes and pharasees theologians? Look how they treated prophets, seers and revelators...

Amen again,

I sit in a room of theologians every Sunday morning.

[Robert F. Smith]

Guys who look at religion through a philosophical lens.

At least you know what theology is, Mark.

And you are a darn good theologian at that.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The Bible stating that interpretation is not private absolutely forbids the notion of theologians or exegesis or even Right Dividers of Systemic LDS Theology with any power to determine doctrine. Any one of these can only point it out.

The Bible in no way prohibits theologizing or exegesis any more than it prohibits geology or physics. Was B. H. Roberts an apostate for writing the five volumes of his Seventy's Course in Theology? Was President John Taylor wrong to have repeatedly said things like the following?

If there is any branch of philosophy calculated to promote the well-being of humanity, that we have not yet grasped, we wish to possess ourselves of it. If there is anything pertaining to the rule and government of nations, or politics, if you please, that we are not acquainted with, we desire to possess it. If there are any religious ideas, any

theological truths

, any principles pertaining to God, that we have not learned, we ask mankind, and we pray God, our Heavenly Father, to enlighten our minds that we may comprehend, realize, embrace, and live up to them as part of our religious faith. Thus our ideas and thoughts would extend as far as the wide world spreads, embracing everything pertaining to light, life, or existence pertaining to this world or the world that is to come. … They would soar after the intelligence of the Gods that dwell in the eternal worlds. They would grasp everything that is good and noble and excellent and happifying and calculated to promote the well-being of the human family. (G. Homer Durham, The Gospel Kingdom [1943], 48-49)

[mfbukowski]

At least you know what theology is, Mark.

And you are a darn good theologian at that.

Thanks for the kind words!