The Difficulty in Defining Doctrine

[CV75]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Defining what constitutes Mormon doctrine has been compared to nailing green jello to the wall.

I suggest that one of the reasons for this is that Mormons seem less interested in evaluating whether a given doctrinal statement is true on its own merits than arguing about who said it and when.

The only reason this comes up is because there do exist conflicting statements by different general authorities on the same doctrinal issue.

When this happens, the typical response is to look to who said it and when.

I frequently hear the following responses:

1. When a Seventy conflicts with an Apostle, "He was only a Seventy when he said that."

2. When an Apostle conflicts with the Prophet, "He was only an Apostle when he said that."

3. When one prophet conflicts with another prophet, "We must go with the words of the prophet who is the most recent."

Numerous variations on the theme could be elaborated.

The primary suggestion I am making here is this:

If we are after the truth, should we not be more interested in what the doctrinal statement is actually saying rather than arguing about who said it and when?

Sometimes it helps to agree upon which definition of doctrine is being used for the sake of the discussion at hand.

Other responses that Mormons take in handling apparent conflicting statements is to take them in context, handle conflict and ambiguity well, navigate assessments with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, prioritize the essential above the non-essential, etc.

When it comes to finding and receiving doctrinal truth, I think it is more profitable to be interested in charity than in arguing (see 3 Nephi 11:29-41): “Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.”

The idea is not to go after truth with what is not His doctrine, but with what he has declared unto us as His doctrine (faith or belief, repentance, baptism in water and then by fire, and become as a little child (another way of saying “endure to the end” and “be charitable”). In this way we prevail against the adversary and expect to inherit the kingdom of God (which is the “end”).

[stemelbow]

We only presume to know truth.  Statements of doctrine are either true or not, I suppose, but we'd never know for sure.  There are so many hanging presumptions on nearly every proposition to really know truth regarding it is near impossible.  We're guessing, testing, and going with what we see.  Unfortunately, to add to the problem, we see through a glass darkly.  So we may feel pretty good about a doctrine, like the past doctrine on racism, for instance, which no doubt many an LDS felt good about, but the frailties of our perspectives leaves us dangling out in space pretending to be on solid ground. 

Do we really know the power of the priesthood and whether or not the power is held by male and female in eternity?  We only presume to know, I guess.

Do we really know the how our genders play a role into eternity, whether we remain sexual beings and what that really means?  We only presume to know.

 

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not a genuine question but is raised strictly to create controversy and conflict.

Or perhaps thoughtful discussion and introspection.

[consiglieri]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Other responses that Mormons take in handling apparent conflicting statements is to take them in context, handle conflict and ambiguity well, navigate assessments with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, prioritize the essential above the non-essential, etc.

Is it possible that the most controversial story in the Book of Mormon (Nephi beheading Laban) is an extreme example of following the personal witness of the Spirit over the received commandments of God?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, salgare said:

Will we be judged by our compliance with doctrine?  If so, is it not like criminal law where ignorance of the law is no excuse?

No, with God ignorance of the Law is a defense. The Book of Mormon is full of prophets warning the faithful that if they fall then those ignorant of the Law will be better off at the Last Day. Willful ignorance of the Law is, however, not an excuse.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have already stated that you do not believe in "the truth". that truth is contextual and may "conflict".    You already understand these issues.

Scholars continually maintain that Mormons do not have "Doctrine" in the sense you use the term here and you know it.  If there are no "doctrinal statements" to start with, they cannot possibly "conflict" with each other.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

If one can pass a temple recommend interview in good faith, one is as "doctrinally LDS" as it is possible to be.

This is not a genuine question but is raised strictly to create controversy and conflict.

I think you over state it when you say scholars maintain that Mormoms do not have doctrine.  Your link is to a blog by Blake Ostler and this seems to be his positon.  How many others take this view? 

 Personally I find his position nonsensical.  How can anyone argue the LDS church has no doctrine?  Perhaps better said the LDS church does not have a systemized theology.   But it certainly has doctrine and I am highly skeptical that the current or past LDS leaders would argue that the church does not have doctrine,.  In fact one of the stated purposes of the FP is to keep the doctrine pure.

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you over state it when you say scholars maintain that Mormoms do not have doctrine.  Your link is to a blog by Blake Ostler and this seems to be his positon.  How many others take this view? 

 Personally I find his position nonsensical.  How can anyone argue the LDS church has no doctrine?  Perhaps better said the LDS church does not have a systemized theology.   But it certainly has doctrine and I am highly skeptical that the current or past LDS leaders would argue that the church does not have doctrine,.  In fact one of the stated purposes of the FP is to keep the doctrine pure.

And by "keeping the doctrine pure," the First Presidency almost certainly means to keep the doctrine correlated.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Is it possible that the most controversial story in the Book of Mormon (Nephi beheading Laban) is an extreme example of following the personal witness of the Spirit over the received commandments of God?

"Possible," but I would say highly unlikely because (according to 1 Nephi 4) Nephi was not struggling with the meaning of Exodus 20:13 but with the thought and fear of killing a man, which has nothing to do with religion or doctrine (many irreligious people do not kill for the same feelings). He said, “I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.”

He eventually chose to obey the voice of the Spirit over his repulsion and fear, not over any doctrinal understanding and commitment he might have had (and which he did not mention in his record), but because of his prior experience with the voice of the Lord. In this instance he brings up his memory “of the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness" as a reference point for accepting the divine rationale to preserve the commandments / plates and his people by killing Laban.

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And by "keeping the doctrine pure," the First Presidency almost certainly means to keep the doctrine correlated.

Which is why Nephi was commanded to kill Laban! The plates contained the Law of Moses - how much more correlated can you get!

[salgare]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, with God ignorance of the Law is a defense. The Book of Mormon is full of prophets warning the faithful that if they fall then those ignorant of the Law will be better off at the Last Day. Willful ignorance of the Law is, however, not an excuse.

I've forgotten most but it seems there was D&C scripture on the degrees of glory and that one would be qualified to receive only the one of these of which they partook of a portion here in mortal life.  If I'm ignorant of a doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom, how am I to achieve partaking of a portion of it here in mortality?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Or perhaps thoughtful discussion and introspection.

The same point on every thread?  "Apostle x says this.  Apostle Y says that.  How do we resolve the conflict?""

All you change is the X and the Y.

How does repeating the same thread provoke "thoughtful discussion"?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you over state it when you say scholars maintain that Mormoms do not have doctrine.  Your link is to a blog by Blake Ostler and this seems to be his positon.  How many others take this view? 

 Personally I find his position nonsensical.  How can anyone argue the LDS church has no doctrine?  Perhaps better said the LDS church does not have a systemized theology.   But it certainly has doctrine and I am highly skeptical that the current or past LDS leaders would argue that the church does not have doctrine,.  In fact one of the stated purposes of the FP is to keep the doctrine pure.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/soulandcity/2014/10/terryl-givens-foundations-wrestling-with-history-and-theology/

What- you want me to look up every reference for you?   This is a start.  

Do some of your own reading on the topic.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/soulandcity/2014/10/terryl-givens-foundations-wrestling-with-history-and-theology/

What- you want me to look up every reference for you?   This is a start.  

Do some of your own reading on the topic.

Wow a bit touchy today? 

You made the claim of scholars.  So back it up.  I will look at your most recent link.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wow a bit touchy today? 

You made the claim of scholars.  So back it up.  I will look at your most recent link.

Golly what a great idea!  Read the post before going off?

What a concept!

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/soulandcity/2014/10/terryl-givens-foundations-wrestling-with-history-and-theology/

What- you want me to look up every reference for you?   This is a start.  

Do some of your own reading on the topic.

Interesting review of the Givens book.  Seems though his book argues for some theology/doctrine.  The book might be interesting to read.  I like Givens even though from what I have read by him and heard he and his wife talk about on podcasts it seems they have created a Mormonism very different than that of those called to lead it.

i recall a podcast by I believe it was Daymon Smith talking about his book called The Book of Mammon.   He talked about how correlation came about and how there were something like 72 doctrinal points that the first correlation committee came up with and these are the guiding doctrinal principles for all the church teaches.   Thus to seems the church has doctrine and has even narrowed it down to what it teaches and emphasizes in its official publications and lesson manuals.  

Could such an approach to correlate and control what is taught be considered a systematic theology?

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Golly what a great idea!  Read the post before going off?

What a concept!

Deleted post.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Interesting review of the Givens book.  Seems though his book argues for some theology/doctrine.  The book might be interesting to read.  I like Givens even though from what I have read by him and heard he and his wife talk about on podcasts it seems they have created a Mormonism very different than that of those called to lead it.

i recall a podcast by I believe it was Daymon Smith talking about his book called The Book of Mammon.   He talked about how correlation came about and how there were something like 72 doctrinal points that the first correlation committee came up with and these are the guiding doctrinal principles for all the church teaches.   Thus to seems the church has doctrine and has even narrowed it down to what it teaches and emphasizes in its official publications and lesson manuals.  

Could such an approach to correlate and control what is taught be considered a systematic theology?

No because a systematic theology involves a "system" of beliefs which present or tap into a consistent metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

We essentially have a list of beliefs received by revelation- not philosophy.  So even if there could be said to be a "list of beliefs" - like the Articles of Faith are, that is not a systematic theology.

A systematic theology would attempt to answer issues like a definition of truth.  We do not do that- we just use the term as everyone does in ordinary language.

It might entail an explanation of how a body of "flesh and bones" could pass through walls, what the implications are of spirit matter, a fully described model of how it is that intelligences came to have spirit bodies etc.

Catholicism for example attempts to define philosophically how it is possible for bread and wine to be "really" the flesh of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine, and does so by reasoning about "Substance" which is the same metaphysics they use to define how three persons in the trinity can be "one" God.

We do not do that.  We simply say essentially that "These are our beliefs as revealed to the prophets", and then list them.  And yes, that list is not consistent.

It is up to us individually to decide how to resolve these issues for ourselves by getting our own revelations.

But that is the whole point!!   We are here to become godlike, and we are taught that what God does is "organize a world out of matter unorganized"

That is precisely what we do here- is figure out how evolution works or doesn't work with the gospel, etc etc- we organize the "matter unorganized" of the pool of revelations into our OWN "systematic theology".

As I see it, that is the task that each of us has- to come to our own conclusions by the spirit.  THAT to me is the uniqueness and the strength of Mormonism and yet others find that as a weakness because they want to be told what to do and what to think, I suppose.

Read that book- it quotes Joseph Smith in more than one instance describing the church roughly as I have here.   I could look up the reference if I had time- but it is there in several places.  Joseph wanted each of us to be our own "theologian" by receiving our own revelations.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

The idea is not to go after truth with what is not His doctrine, but with what he has declared unto us as His doctrine (faith or belief, repentance, baptism in water and then by fire, and become as a little child (another way of saying “endure to the end” and “be charitable”).

Wait, you think little children are charitable? Have you ever met a little child?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Is it possible that the most controversial story in the Book of Mormon (Nephi beheading Laban) is an extreme example of following the personal witness of the Spirit over the received commandments of God?

I am not sure that Nephi (or God) thought he was breaking a commandment. Nephi's objection was that he had never killed before. He never mentions in his thoughts that it was wrong to kill Laban. He just seemed squeamish about it. Laban had just robbed him and his brothers and sent assassins to kill them and would do it again and would, if he survived, try to track them down and kill them again. In ancient jurisprudence that is justifiable homicide. And God added it that He was okay with it. I am not seeing this as an exception to the laws.

To our modern sensibilities it seems wrong because we grew up in a world where vigilantes are not tolerated and we trust law enforcement to deal with these kinds of problems. The "Thou shalt not kill" law is more accurately a prohibition against murder as the death penalty was alive and well in Israel. This would not be murder by their standards.

One thing I noticed when I reread the account is that Nephi grabbed him by the hair and cut off his head. Seems like an awkward position. Did he saw the head off from the front? Maybe he left Laban lying there and cut off his head with his other hand while holding his hair. Hard to sever a head with one blow one-handed.

[salgare]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No because a systematic theology involves a "system" of beliefs which present or tap into a consistent metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

We essentially have a list of beliefs received by revelation- not philosophy.  So even if there could be said to be a "list of beliefs" - like the Articles of Faith are, that is not a systematic theology.

A systematic theology would attempt to answer issues like a definition of truth.  We do not do that- we just use the term as everyone does in ordinary language.

It might entail an explanation of how a body of "flesh and bones" could pass through walls, what the implications are of spirit matter, a fully described model of how it is that intelligences came to have spirit bodies etc.

Catholicism for example attempts to define philosophically how it is possible for bread and wine to be "really" the flesh of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine, and does so by reasoning about "Substance" which is the same metaphysics they use to define how three persons in the trinity can be "one" God.

We do not do that.  We simply say essentially that "These are our beliefs as revealed to the prophets", and then list them.  And yes, that list is not consistent.

It is up to us individually to decide how to resolve these issues for ourselves by getting our own revelations.

But that is the whole point!!   We are here to become godlike, and we are taught that what God does is "organize a world out of matter unorganized"

That is precisely what we do here- is figure out how evolution works or doesn't work with the gospel, etc etc- we organize the "matter unorganized" of the pool of revelations into our OWN "systematic theology".

As I see it, that is the task that each of us has- to come to our own conclusions by the spirit.  THAT to me is the uniqueness and the strength of Mormonism and yet others find that as a weakness because they want to be told what to do and what to think, I suppose.

Read that book- it quotes Joseph Smith in more than one instance describing the church roughly as I have here.   I could look up the reference if I had time- but it is there in several places.  Joseph wanted each of us to be our own "theologian" by receiving our own revelations.

It seems to me that BRM attempted this in Mormon Doctrine and before that it was his father in law (right?)

http://www.amazon.com/Answers-gospel-questions-classic-collection/dp/1573454400

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, salgare said:

It seems to me that BRM attempted this in Mormon Doctrine and before that it was his father in law (right?)

http://www.amazon.com/Answers-gospel-questions-classic-collection/dp/1573454400

No, this is not "systematic theology"

It is what it says it is, a list of what the author thought were good answers to questions people had about the gospel.

It has no interconnected metaphysics or epistemology.  Systematic theology is not about WHAT we believe but WHY we believe it.  Why do we believe that God has a body?  Essentially because Joseph said so after his revelation.  Why do we believe that we can become like God?  Because Joseph said so.

There is no attempt to describe anything philosophically- in fact we are encouraged to stay away from the "philosophies of men".  Philosophy is precisely what is needed to form a "systematic theology".

Jesus preached in parables, and taught simple beliefs.  He did not speak about "substance" or Platonic Forms of Goodness or about how God was a personification of the Form of Goodness.  Can you see the difference?

He taught that God was our Father and that we should be kind to each other and love God and our neighbor.  He didn't even teach about creation or how all that supposedly happened.  No ex nihilo, no big bang, no cosmology.  No dissertation on the theory behind how he raised Lazarus, no gizmos or theories.  Just love one another.

THAT is the difference.  Gizmos and philosophical theories are attempts at "systematic theology".

We ain't got none, thank goodness.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure that Nephi (or God) thought he was breaking a commandment. Nephi's objection was that he had never killed before. He never mentions in his thoughts that it was wrong to kill Laban. He just seemed squeamish about it. Laban had just robbed him and his brothers and sent assassins to kill them and would do it again and would, if he survived, try to track them down and kill them again. In ancient jurisprudence that is justifiable homicide. And God added it that He was okay with it. I am not seeing this as an exception to the laws.

To our modern sensibilities it seems wrong because we grew up in a world where vigilantes are not tolerated and we trust law enforcement to deal with these kinds of problems. The "Thou shalt not kill" law is more accurately a prohibition against murder as the death penalty was alive and well in Israel. This would not be murder by their standards.

One thing I noticed when I reread the account is that Nephi grabbed him by the hair and cut off his head. Seems like an awkward position. Did he saw the head off from the front? Maybe he left Laban lying there and cut off his head with his other hand while holding his hair. Hard to sever a head with one blow one-handed.

I've also noticed that most of the early Book of Mormon references to "commandments" (which begin in 1 Nephi chapter 2) had to do with personal instructions from the Lord to Lehi and Nephi and not with the written commandments. The written commandments "according to the Law of Moses" aren't mentioned until 1 Nephi 4:15, and any writing of Moses and the prophets (which include the moral commandments) aren't mentioned until chapter 5 (verses 11-13 and 21). Even then, "commandments" mostly continue to refer to ongoing communications from the Lord having to do with revelations for daily living, the journey, the mission, etc. (5:20; 7:2; 9:3; 16:8-9; 17:44, 49 -- I could go on and on).

[salgare]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, this is not "systematic theology"

It is what it says it is, a list of what the author thought were good answers to questions people had about the gospel.

It has no interconnected metaphysics or epistemology.  Systematic theology is not about WHAT we believe but WHY we believe it.  Why do we believe that God has a body?  Essentially because Joseph said so after his revelation.  Why do we believe that we can become like God?  Because Joseph said so.

There is no attempt to describe anything philosophically- in fact we are encouraged to stay away from the "philosophies of men".  Philosophy is precisely what is needed to form a "systematic theology".

Jesus preached in parables, and taught simple beliefs.  He did not speak about "substance" or Platonic Forms of Goodness or about how God was a personification of the Form of Goodness.  Can you see the difference?

He taught that God was our Father and that we should be kind to each other and love God and our neighbor.  He didn't even teach about creation or how all that supposedly happened.  No ex nihilo, no big bang, no cosmology.  No dissertation on the theory behind how he raised Lazarus, no gizmos or theories.  Just love one another.

THAT is the difference.  Gizmos and philosophical theories are attempts at "systematic theology".

We ain't got none, thank goodness.

Well what about my hero?  Was this not all about metaphysics?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-Way-Life-Elementary/dp/1560850779

 

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

It seems to me that BRM attempted this in Mormon Doctrine and before that it was his father in law (right?)

http://www.amazon.com/Answers-gospel-questions-classic-collection/dp/1573454400

And before that, it was the father of his father-in-law.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, this is not "systematic theology"

It is what it says it is, a list of what the author thought were good answers to questions people had about the gospel.

It has no interconnected metaphysics or epistemology.  Systematic theology is not about WHAT we believe but WHY we believe it.  Why do we believe that God has a body?  Essentially because Joseph said so after his revelation.  Why do we believe that we can become like God?  Because Joseph said so.

There is no attempt to describe anything philosophically- in fact we are encouraged to stay away from the "philosophies of men".  Philosophy is precisely what is needed to form a "systematic theology".

Jesus preached in parables, and taught simple beliefs.  He did not speak about "substance" or Platonic Forms of Goodness or about how God was a personification of the Form of Goodness.  Can you see the difference?

He taught that God was our Father and that we should be kind to each other and love God and our neighbor.  He didn't even teach about creation or how all that supposedly happened.  No ex nihilo, no big bang, no cosmology.  No dissertation on the theory behind how he raised Lazarus, no gizmos or theories.  Just love one another.

THAT is the difference.  Gizmos and philosophical theories are attempts at "systematic theology".

We ain't got none, thank goodness.

I tend to disagree with you here, mfb.

What you are describing is a systematic theology in the philosophical sense.

Just because Mormonism has never (well, not until Blake Ostler) attempted to use classical philosophic terms and ideas to define its beliefs does not mean that Mormonism has not attempted a systematic theology.

The teachings of Joseph Smith and his revelations were systematized with the Bible most famously by James Talmage in his landmark works Jesus the Christ and the Articles of Faith.

Those volumes have formed the back bone of a systematized belief system which has largely found its way into current correlated Mormonism.

Because it is systematized and because it deals with theology, it is properly considered to be a "systematized theology."