Systematic Theology

[Jim Stiles]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

[Coreyb]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

B. H. Roberts did, it's called The Truth, The Way, The Life. It was not allowed to be published in his lifetime but later was in the 80's I think.

[The Nehor]

Yes, but they were all failures to one degree or another,

[Jim Stiles]

B. H. Roberts did, it's called The Truth, The Way, The Life. It was not allowed to be published in his lifetime but later was in the 80's I think.

Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

It is virtually agreed among would-be LDS theologians that the LDS faith is not adapted to "theology" per se, especially "systematic Theology".

It has been repeatedly said that we do not have "theology", we have revelation.

I would highly recommend a book called "Wrestling the Angel" by Teryl Givens to learn about these and other issues.http://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Angel-Foundations-Thought-Humanity/dp/0199794928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427348488&sr=1-1&keywords=wrestling+the+angel

Edited March 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

This would be like writing a systematic theology of science. There is no systematic theology. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

Not sure what you mean by that, but you might want to take a look at the following works.  These are the best that LDS scholars offer (except for Webb, who offers fulsome praise of Mormon theology):

 

Ostler, Blake T., Exploring Mormon Thought I: The Attributes of God (SLC: Kofford Books, 2001).

 

Ostler, Blake T., Exploring Mormon Thought II: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (SLC: Kofford Books, 2005/2006). 

 

Ostler, Blake T., Exploring Mormon Thought, III: Of God and Gods (SLC: Kofford Books, 2008).

 

Ostler, Blake T., Exploring Mormon Thought IV: Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement (SLC: Kofford Books, 2013).

 

Harrell, Charles R., “This is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (SLC: Kofford Books, 2011). 

 

Madsen, Truman G., Eternal Man (SLC: Deseret Book, 1966).

 

McMurrin, Sterling M., The Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology (SLC: Univ. of Utah, 1959/ reprint 1979).

 

McMurrin, Sterling M., Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion (SLC: Univ. of Utah, 1965).  In combined edition of The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion: And, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, Signature Mormon Classics (SLC: Signature Books, 2000).

 

Roberts, Brigham H., The Mormon Doctrine of Deity (SLC: Deseret News Press, 1903).

 

Roberts, Brigham H., The Seventy’s Course in Theology , 5 vols. (SLC: Deseret News Press, 1907).  Online at http://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe . 

 

Webb, Stephen H., Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford, 2011).  In this groundbreaking study, Webb offers a new theological understanding of the material and spiritual: that, far from being contradictory, they unite in the very stuff of the eternal Jesus Christ.

Accepting matter as a perfection (or predicate) of the divine requires a rethinking of the immateriality of God, the doctrine of creation out of nothing, the Chalcedonian formula of the person of Christ, and the analogical nature of religious language. It also requires a careful reconsideration of Augustine's appropriation of the Neo-Platonic understanding of divine incorporeality as well as Origen's rejection of anthropomorphism. Webb locates his position in contrast to evolutionary theories of emergent materialism and the popular idea that the world is God's body. He draws on a little known theological position known as the ''heavenly flesh'' Christology, investigates the many misunderstandings of its origins and relation to the Monophysite movement, and supplements it with retrievals of Duns Scotus, Caspar Scwenckfeld and Eastern Orthodox reflections on the trans-figuration. Also included in Webb's study are discussions of classical figures like Barth and Aquinas as well as more recent theological proposals from Bruce McCormack, David Hart, and Colin Gunton. Perhaps most provocatively, the book argues that Mormonism provides the most challenging, urgent, and potentially rewarding source for metaphysical renewal today.

Webb's concept of Christian materialism challenges traditional Christian common sense, and aims to show the way to a more metaphysically sound orthodoxy. 

 

Webb, Stephen H., Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).

Edited March 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Bob that is an amazingly wonderful post. I have problems with the logic of the concepts of metaphysics in a general way,as a good Wittgensteinian but I see Webb's stuff as amazing poetry, almost revelatory in its presentation. Great post.

[mfbukowski]

The problem with systematic Theology is that it tries to put God into a box that can be described in human language.

The best we can do, is show the benefits of envisioning God in a certain way.

"If we see God this way, we take care of the xyz problem, and make our views compatible with abc, so now we also solve the issue of ghk"

To say definitely that "God IS thus and so" of course cannot be verified.

So along with Alma 32, the best we can do is find beliefs which resonate with our spirits, and "grow sweet to us"

I find understanding God to be a glorious human infinitely above my abilities due to his righteousness, to be an incredibly life changing idea.

That is why I am LDS, and why I think systematic theology makes no sense.

Systematic theology is the philosophies of men mangled with scripture. (No typo)

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob that is an amazingly wonderful post. I have problems with the logic of the concepts of metaphysics in a general way,as a good Wittgensteinian but I see Webb's stuff as amazing poetry, almost revelatory in its presentation. Great post.

Yes.  If we say anything like that, we are ignored or regarded as wild and irresponsible heretics.  Then comes Stephen Webb and gets it published through OUP.  Amazing.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................  

Systematic theology is the philosophies of men mangled with scripture. (No typo)

Brilliant and ironic, Mark!!  I didn't just smile, I also said "Ahah!"

[mfbukowski]

Brilliant and ironic, Mark!!  I didn't just smile, I also said "Ahah!"

Thanks, I plan to use that elsewhere.

But for me, it really captures it.

Philosophy is about the logic of how we think about things, scripture is about inspiration and what beliefs give life meaning, and never the twain shall meet.

And then we have "theology" which totally confuses two different language games, and mangles both in the attempt.

It's like talking about the epistemology of basketball.

If the rules are True, can they be changed? Heavy stuff.

And if not,clearly only irrational people would accept those rules, since they are not scientifically verifiable.

[mfbukowski]

Yes.  If we say anything like that, we are ignored or regarded as wild and irresponsible heretics.  Then comes Stephen Webb and gets it published through OUP.  Amazing.

Well they like metaphysics, what can I say? Good for him!

[Ahab]

The problem with systematic Theology is that it tries to put God into a box that can be described in human language.

What if instead of a "box" you use the word "body" and then describe him/that kind of being by using the kind of language(s) God uses?

What in your mind would be "wrong" with that?

The best we can do, is show the benefits of envisioning God in a certain way.

The way God is, I hope you mean.

"If we see God this way, we take care of the xyz problem, and make our views compatible with abc, so now we also solve the issue of ghk"

Just make sure you don't leave anything out or reject anything that there is to know about God, covering all of the bases, and I think you'd be fine.

To say definitely that "God IS thus and so" of course cannot be verified.

That sounds to me like some of that "God can't be known/is unknowable" drivel that I do not accept.

So along with Alma 32, the best we can do is find beliefs which resonate with our spirits, and "grow sweet to us"

...and "which are true" and "which will help us to know God and the kind of person he is".

I find understanding God to be a glorious human infinitely above my abilities due to his righteousness, to be an incredibly life changing idea.

Just because it's kinda complicated and time consuming doesn't mean you should think you can never know God. The "infinitely above my abilities" part is what I do not accept. You can know him, however long that may take you.

That is why I am LDS, and why I think systematic theology makes no sense.

And yet it does, so you are wrong about that.

Systematic theology is the philosophies of men mangled with scripture. (No typo)

So which of those do you have trouble accepting?

The philosophies of (only some or all?) men?

Or scripture?

[mfbukowski]

Ahab I did not dream this up myself.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theology

http://www.patheos.com/Mormon/Theology-Hurts-James-Faulconer-05-08-2014.html

Edited March 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Ahab I did not dream this up myself.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theology

http://www.patheos.com/Mormon/Theology-Hurts-James-Faulconer-05-08-2014.html

I think I get the idea of what systematic theology involves but to say we don't do that or don't think it is profitable for the man of God to study to try to understand God in that way sounds like unnecessary and even a potentially harmful exclusion of something that in some way can be beneficial. We study scriptures/what other people have said about God and even in the name of God AS WELL AS seeking and relying upon personal revelation from God. It doesn't have to be one or the other at the exclusion of the other. Both ways are good, but yes, personal testimony is best.

[readstoomuch]

That was a great list of books.  The Ostler books are tough to get through.  McMurrins are pretty short and BH Roberts the Mormon Doctrine of Deity is entertaining  I got Roberts book for two bucks on Kindle.  

[Jim Stiles]

Thank You to all who replied.

[BCSpace]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

 

The Church already has one in the form of officially published manuals.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church already has one in the form of officially published manuals.

"Systematic theology" is a particular genre of writing unused by the LDS Church.  Indeed, many Mormon intellectuals insist that the nature of Mormon theology makes such a format impossible.

 

In order to understand this, you might want to take a look at the following:

 

Matthew Bowman, ACan Mormonism Have a Systematic Theology?@ review of Charles R. Harrell, AThis Is My Doctrine@: The Development of Mormon Theology (Kofford, 2011), in Dialogue, 44/4 (Winter 2011):207ff;

Matthew Bowman, AWhy Is It So Hard to Figure Out What Mormons Believe?@ Patheos, April 4, 2012;

Gary Bergera, AWhat Is Official Doctrine?@ Seventh East Press, 1/1 (Oct 6, 1981):6;

Blake Ostler, AThe Challenges of (Non-existent?) Mormon Theology,@ Patheos, Aug 9, 2010.

[SmileyMcGee]

Delete

Edited March 31, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Fascinating thread. Well done to you all!

[BCSpace]

"Systematic theology" is a particular genre of writing unused by the LDS Church. 

 

Systematic Theology includes not only the foundational sacred texts (in Mormonism, those would be the Scriptures which are the Standard Works and the officially recognized words of the prophets), but also includes the religion's other texts in an attempt to compare and relate all of the Scriptures and create a systematized statement on what the Scriptures say about particular issues.  That would be all the Church's official publications.

 

 

Indeed, many Mormon intellectuals insist that the nature of Mormon theology makes such a format impossible.

 

 

 

1) Being a Mormon intellectual alone does not qualify one to define a Systematic Theology.

2) Most Mormon intellectuals who believe this format to be impossible...

 

a) Often don't accept the official doctrine of the LDS Church.

b) Forget that continuing revelation is an official doctrine of the Church and therefore the LDS Church's Systematic Theology is also a Dynamic Theology.

 

 

In order to understand this, you might want to take a look at the following:

 

 

I appreciate that, but I believe I understand quite well; having won this argument some years ago and having received the title that you see above my avatar as a trophy.

 

Edited April 1, 2015 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

Systematic Theology includes not only the foundational sacred texts (in Mormonism, those would be the Scriptures which are the Standard Works and the officially recognized words of the prophets), but also includes the religion's other texts in an attempt to compare and relate all of the Scriptures and create a systematized statement on what the Scriptures say about particular issues.  That would be all the Church's official publications.

Despite the incoherence of this statement, you appear to believe that "systematic theology" is a generic combination of all the Church's "official" publications (the Canon along with anything else that you desire to include).  You also appear not to know what the word "genre" means, as for example in the case of the fairy tale genre -- which typically begins with the phrase "Once upon a time . . . ."  It might help you to consult some systematic theology books from the Protestant tradition so that you can see what they are like.

 

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1996).

John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (P&R, 2006).

James Leo Garrett, Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, 2 volumes (Eerdmans, 1990-1991).

Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 4 volumes (Bethany House, 2002-2004).

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994).

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Eerdmans, 1960/ reprint Hendrickson).

Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 volumes (Oxford, 1997-1999).

Thomas Oden, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Prince Press, 1987-1992).

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Eerdmans, 1988-1993).

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Word Publishing, 1998).

 

They are typically based on Scripture, along with Greek philosophical modes of thinking, while the great Roman Catholic systematic theology is that by Thomas Aquinas -- based on Church tradition, the sacred deposit of the faith, along with Greek philosophy.  The LDS Church has never assembled such a systematic theology, not only because the Brethren are not trained to do so, but also because they apparently see no need for it.

 

1) Being a Mormon intellectual alone does not qualify one to define a Systematic Theology.

2) Most Mormon intellectuals who believe this format to be impossible...

a) Often don't accept the official doctrine of the LDS Church.

b) Forget that continuing revelation is an official doctrine of the Church and therefore the LDS Church's Systematic Theology is also a Dynamic Theology.

 

You adopt your own incoherent definition of "systematic theology," for what purpose I don't understand, and at the same time make out as unbelievers the very conservative LDS intellectuals who do not think an LDS systematic theology possible.  Why don't they think it possible?  Because of the very dynamism which you tout:  continuing revelation and an open canon.

 

 

I appreciate that, but I believe I understand quite well; having won this argument some years ago and having received the title that you see above my avatar as a trophy.

 

I guess that self-congratulations are in order, but it isn't clear to me that any such debate ever took place.  That would require a substantive discussion of real systematic theology, which you seem not to understand.

 

You could start with Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium for the Use of Theological Students, 3 vols. (Rochester Theological Seminary, 1903), online at http://www.thescripturealone.com/Strong'sTheology.pdf ,

 

I:94-96,

Theology is commonly divided into Biblical, Historical, Systematic and Practical.

 

1. Biblical theology aims to arrange and classify the facts of revelation, confining itself to the Scriptures for its material, and treating of doctrine only so far as it was developed at the close of the apostolic age. 

 

2. Historical Theology traces the development of the Biblical doctrines from the time of the apostles to the present day, and gives account of the results of this development in the life of the church. 

 

3. Systematic Theology takes the material furnished by Biblical and by Historical Theology, and with this material seeks to build up into an organic and consistent whole all our knowledge of God and of the relations as between God and the universe, whether this knowledge be originally derived from nature or from the Scriptures. 

 

4. Practical Theology is the system of truth considered as a means of renewing and sanctifying men, or, in other words, theology in its publication and enforcement. 

----------------------------------   

I:99-109,

The History of Systematic Theology

1. In the Eastern Church, Systematic theology may be said to have had its beginning and end in John of Damascus (700-760). 

2. In the Western Church , we may (with Hagenbach) distinguish three periods:

(a) The period of Scholasticism, — introduced by Peter Lombard (1100-1600), and reaching its culmination in Thomas Aquinas (1221-1274) and Duns Scotus (1265-1308). 

(b) The period of Symbolism, — represented by the Lutheran theology of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), and the Reformed theology of John Calvin (1509-1564); the former connecting itself with the Analytic theology of Calixtus (1585-1656), and the latter with the Federal theology of Cocceius (1603-1669). 

© The period of Criticism and Speculation, — in its three divisions: the Rationalistic, represented by Semler (1725-1791); the Transitional, by Schleiermacher (1768-1834); the Evangelical, by Nitzsch, Muller, Tholuck and Dorner.

[The Nehor]

I appreciate that, but I believe I understand quite well; having won this argument some years ago and having received the title that you see above my avatar as a trophy.

Truly a legend in your own mind.