Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[danielwoods]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Who did those who heard directly from God in the past study under?

 

In the beginning Adam and all his family walked and talked with God directly. It was only after the flood that this appears to have stopped. So, the pattern, if we could call it that, is that originally people didn't have prophets, but communed directly with God, then as people grew more evil, the prophets were the only one's who did this. So to answer your question, we can see that there were teachers and students. A prophet or teacher would have a group that they were teaching directly (like Elijah and Elisha). Jesus used the same pattern with his disciples. 

Edited October 21, 2016 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

I never said that all those ignorant of theology claim revelation, but perhaps they might be open to the Spirit in ways that those who have been taught that such and such is truth by others besides God and the Spirit are not (this includes LDS who do not put the Spirit first as their teacher).  And if they are reading the Bible on its own and coming to conclusions closer to LDS doctrine than traditional evangelical theology, that should have some interesting implications, should it not?  

LDS don't do theology in the sense of systematic theology. We don't, or rather shouldn't, fill in gaps of revealed knowledge with speculative reason though of course we organize what has been revealed and teach and study that while seeking further enlightenment through revelation.

I have great respect for faiths that do make that choice of devoting their lives to trying to perceive God through reason, some of their beliefs are very inspiring and it is easily to understand the desire to embrace them and I believe there is much truth written in them, but LDS as a whole do not follow that path as we have been told by God to rely on continuing revelation, whether received by leaders or personal.  Our faith and doctrine is to be revealed knowledge, confirmed by personal revelation of the spirit.  We study God in our faith by studying scripture, not philosophy.  Philosophy may inform our understanding of how we and the world react to God as physics and chemistry do, but only God can tell us who he is with any significant meaning and all our studyshould be for the purpose of coming face to face with him, spiritually at first and eventually in the flesh.

This is perfect! ! Excellent post Cal!

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

There seems to be some underlying agreement here (danielwoods & mfbukowski - who'd have thunk?).

On the one hand, we have self-identified EVs who are ignorant of the basics in Christian theology.  I've argued (back on page 1) that this ignorance is largely due to apathy.

On the other, we have LDS members who deny even having a theology (see mfbukowki's Encyclopedia of Mormonism quote a few posts above - Wow!).  

And if we could grow a third hand, here we have this thread wherein we debate a rhetorical question.  Rhetorical because as mfbukowski explains, Mormonism doesn't actually have a theology for EVs to swap & embrace.  All that appears to matter in Mormonism is whether you obey whatever it is Thomas S. Monson, et al. asks of you. 

This a stunning admission and difficult to see how it doesn't render the whole thread moot.

--Erik 

PS.  As always, I'll gladly take correction if I've missed something.

:0)

Testimony and personal revelation is not theology.

Doctrine is not theology.

The contention is that they believe what we believe. The entire idea of having a lay Ministry is based on the fact that you don't need theology to know who God is.

Edited October 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, danielwoods said:

In the beginning Adam and all his family walked and talked with God directly. It was only after the flood that this appears to have stopped. So, the pattern, if we could call it that, is that originally people didn't have prophets, but communed directly with God, then as people grew more evil, the prophets were the only one's who did this. So to answer your question, we can see that there were teachers and students. A prophet or teacher would have a group that they were teaching directly (like Elijah and Elisha). Jesus used the same pattern with his disciples. 

HUH?

[3DOP]

On 10/16/2016 at 6:43 PM, paulhadik said:

Roars

Always a thrill to speak with you. May I say for the record you are just terrible with social media. I think I was your only friend on FB for about 3 years. Hope all is well my dear friend as with you Cal and Tom; it has been a long time. Island life occasionally takes its toll on my brain and I needed some refreshing dialogue. Of course, being a Calvinist I really had no choice in the matter (HAHAHAHA Oh, a little bit of that nutty, Reformist humor).  Hard to believe that ZLMB was about 15 years ago.

Anyway hope y'all don't mind if I stick around a bit. Out here in Chuuk I am now working with Forever Young Foundation out of BYU bringing out Education Majors to teach in our schools.  Sorry, didn't mean to distract from the topic at hand.

I suppose I will ask again: "What is an uninformed Evangelical?"

 

paul

 

(ps, I saw I got "reputation". What does that mean? Is it like street cred?)

Hey paul,

I made a Facebook account for you, as I recall. My social media friend. Thanks for being my only friend for so long. Here we are hooking up! Yet again.

Distraction from what? Modern Mormonism is opposed to the Traditional Mormonism we encountered when my children were still little and yours were the gleam in your eye. They are moving fast away from Dan Peterson and the people we used to be able to converse with. A religion now founded upon interior perceptions of reality that can only be known to each individual, discussion with modern Mormons seems futile. The very meaning of truth has all changed, all changed, in the time we have not spoken, while you and I remain what we were, the Restoration undergoes Reformation. Thank you for such a distraction! God speed. Let me know (not on Facebook, but here privately) when you need help with becoming an apostolic Christian, unrestored and unreformed (Catholic). Live forever.

With fond memories and all sincerity,

Roars

PS: A few more years to go in the truck. Five grandbaby boys now, a sixth grandchild before Christmas! She is reportedly to be feminine. We shall see. Again...take good care. Your friend in Jesus and Mary,

Rory

 

Edited October 22, 2016 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

And a hearty JMJ and an AMDG to Catholics everywhere! 

[bluebell]

On 10/20/2016 at 10:30 PM, danielwoods said:

In the beginning Adam and all his family walked and talked with God directly. It was only after the flood that this appears to have stopped. So, the pattern, if we could call it that, is that originally people didn't have prophets, but communed directly with God, then as people grew more evil, the prophets were the only one's who did this. So to answer your question, we can see that there were teachers and students. A prophet or teacher would have a group that they were teaching directly (like Elijah and Elisha). Jesus used the same pattern with his disciples. 

My understanding of scripture is that after the Fall, God no longer dealt directly with anyone, except under very special circumstances (almost exclusively to introduce His Son).  That's what the fall meant-a separation from God.

[bluebell]

On 10/20/2016 at 7:30 PM, Five Solas said:

Correct.  But no one ever suggested they are the "same person," bluebell.  I wish you wouldn't resort to this sort of argumentation (pretending the other person implied something he or she didn't).  It sure doesn't help the dialogue.  The context here is obedience, refer back to my post at the top of page 4 if you need to.  And to follow the counsel & commands of your prophet--it is the will of your lord, is it not? 

Hence my point back to Calm--she made a distinction without a difference.  A song comes to my mind, from back in my days as a member of the LDS Church--

Come, listen to a prophet's voice,
And hear the word of God,
And in the way of truth rejoice...

Whose voice, bluebell?  And whose word behind it?  If you can demonstrate a meaningful difference for LDS within the context of obedience--yours will be a bigger bombshell than the one mfbukowski dropped earlier in the thread (that LDS have no theology). 

:0)

--Erik

You seemed to imply that they were the same person when Cal said that your mistake was replacing God with the prophet and you replied that it was all the same to LDS.   So i didn't pretend that you implied something.  You actually implied it.

Cal said-Your error is substituting Pres. Monson's name for the Lord's.

And you replied-A distinction without a difference, my friend.

If you can explain the difference between the words of the men who wrote the bible and the word of God, then you'll understand how LDS see the difference.

[cdowis]

On 10/20/2016 at 11:09 AM, Calm said:

LDS don't do theology in the sense of systematic theology. We don't, or rather shouldn't, fill in gaps of revealed knowledge with speculative reason though of course we organize what has been revealed and teach and study that while seeking further enlightenment through revelation.

We have an organized theology, and you know it by the name of "The Thirteen Articles of Faith".  Now you are quibbling over semantics, that "speculation" is an essential element of "theology" and the LDS church church does not speculate.  Perhaps you should carefully consider the practice of withholding the priesthood from members of a certain race and that you read the church's article on it.  Basically it says, "We just don't know the reason for the ban and how it came about".

To me,even using your definition, that was an admission that it was speculative on the basis for the ban.

You are approaching the "holier than thou" attitude of my religion vs yours.  The Lord leads the church with revelation but He also leaves room for speculation, trying to figure things out, and, yes, even mistakes.

Now, am I right, or am I mistaken.

Edited October 22, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

We have an organized theology, and you know it by the name of "The Thirteen Articles of Faith".  Now you are quibbling over semantics, that "speculation" is an essential element of "theology" and the LDS church church does not speculate.  Perhaps you should carefully consider the practice of withholding the priesthood from members of a certain race and that you read the church's article on it.  Basically it says, "We just don't know the reason for the ban and how it came about".

Systematic theology ("systematic" here is not just an adjective attached to a name, but part of the name itself..like "Inorganic Chemistry" identifies the specific chemistry field ),which is what is usually meant when referring to "theology" and thus why we need to be careful in use of the term "theology"  as done in other faiths if done in ours would have supplied the reason for the ban.  We do not do such things (or at least shouldn't, I think we are in general learning to do better at not filling in gaps as a church though it is very hard not to do that as individuals).  If we were to start claiming we did Systematic Theology", that would be what most would take away from that.  We have no major Catechism, such as the RCC has, which is in my opinion a magnificent resource, but only a very limited list of Articles and manuals teaching very basic doctrine like Gospel Principles, that organize what has been taught without adding more explanation (or rather that is the ideal the writers/leaders are reaching for as one can see by the reduction of the manual by a third or by half, with the removal of a number of speculations and unnecessary quotes, depending more on scripture and very limited and basic quotes).  Organizing what we do have without filling in reasons where it has not been revealed to us is a significant difference and is not just semantics any more than a recipe and a shopping list are the same and we should use the same label for both...after all, both are compiled lists of foods.

Our theology is more narrative, we collect 'parables' from the lives of those in the scriptures and our members and also others.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Calm

[cdowis]

OK, if you want to be technically correct, why don't you get technical and say we have no systematic theology like the Catholic Catechism.  However we do have the Thirteen Articles of Faith, and the "Gospel Principles " manual which gives a broad view of our doctrines.  AND the missionaries have a whole course of lessons for investigators, but don't get that confused with Catechism.

OR you could say, yes, we do have a theology.

Edited October 22, 2016 by cdowis

[paulhadik]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey paul,

I made a Facebook account for you, as I recall. My social media friend. Thanks for being my only friend for so long. Here we are hooking up! Yet again.

Distraction from what? Modern Mormonism is opposed to the Traditional Mormonism we encountered when my children were still little and yours were the gleam in your eye. They are moving fast away from Dan Peterson and the people we used to be able to converse with. A religion now founded upon interior perceptions of reality that can only be known to each individual, discussion with modern Mormons seems futile. The very meaning of truth has all changed, all changed, in the time we have not spoken, while you and I remain what we were, the Restoration undergoes Reformation. Thank you for such a distraction! God speed. Let me know (not on Facebook, but here privately) when you need help with becoming an apostolic Christian, unrestored and unreformed (Catholic). Live forever.

With fond memories and all sincerity,

Roars

PS: A few more years to go in the truck. Five grandbaby boys now, a sixth grandchild before Christmas! She is reportedly to be feminine. We shall see. Again...take good care. Your friend in Jesus and Mary,

Rory

 

Roars

I have found it interesting the last couple years, watching the USA from afar and seeing the final seismic convulsions of morality, the number of Catholic Bishops and strong EV pastors remind the public that we as believers place ourselves under an authority and therefore we aren't swayed by public pressure and changing social mores. I feel there is a day coming when many of us will (as II Cor. says) be comforting one another as the Lord has comforted us.

Kind of makes me wonder how Dr. Peterson responds (if what you say is correct) to this new liberal Mormonism. I look forward to meeting you someday on one side of the veil or other for a lengthy discussion of (among other much more valuable things) the legacy of Buster Keaton

 

paul

 

ps: I still reject the threads initial argument that there is such a thing as an uninformed evangelical. We believe that upon salvation we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit and the fruits that result are directly attributed to the Spirit's work in our lives. Unless the Holy Spirit is Himself uninformed you are simply talking about lost people who claim to be something they aren't mfbukowski.

Edited October 23, 2016 by paulhadik

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

OK, if you want to be technically correct, why don't you get technical and say we have no systematic theology like the Catholic Catechism.  However we do have the Thirteen Articles of Faith, and the "Gospel Principles " manual which gives a broad view of our doctrines.  AND the missionaries have a whole course of lessons for investigators, but don't get that confused with Catechism.

OR you could say, yes, we do have a theology.

Below are the first four major links which came up on a google search on "Mormon theology" all of which agree we have no systematic theology, and some say we have no theology at all.  A list of beliefs is not a theology, it is a list of beliefs.  Doctrine is not theology- systematic theology would include a single theory explaining all of LDS belief including a metaphysical analysis of what "more refined" matter is, how it relates to the "organization" of worlds, how intelligences become spirits, a theory of time of how it is possible for there to be "generations" of Gods, a theory  perhaps of the physics of how the atonement occurred, perhaps in terms of refined matter etc.

Catholicism on the other hand for example adopted Greek metaphysics to describe Christianity using "substance theology" with a metaphysics of how undefined "substance" could both unify the Trinity and how the contrasts between "appearances" and "substance" could cause water to become wine and turn bread into the body, soul and divinity of Jesus himself.  Related to that in Catholicism is the idea of a "treasury of merit" by which all the good that good people do can be used almost like a cash reserve, to help others who merit less to get into heaven, almost like a spiritual "welfare system", from which "indulgences" can be obtained for souls in "Purgatory".

Contrast this kind of philosophical theology with, the Apostles Creed, which is more like our "Articles of Faith" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed

Quote

 

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

 

 

Notice the difference.  This is a simple statement of beliefs like our Articles of Faith.  There is no mention of the trinity, or Substance of transubstantiation or a treasury of merit, no mention of creation ex nihilo etc.  THOSE philosophical beliefs developed by Augustine and the church fathers, Aquinas et al, are the "systematic theology" of Catholicism.

THAT kind of systematic theology is what we do NOT have- we do not have writings by scholars pondering what we call "the mysteries"- all those things we discuss on these boards but for which no one has an answer.

Quotes about the lack of Mormon systematic theology: 

 https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V44N04_521.pdf

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theology

http://www.realclearreligion.org/2014/02/21/mormonism039s_unsystematic_theology_259181.html

https://bycommonconsent.com/2014/08/01/do-mormons-do-theology-please-listen-to-my-podcast-please/

I think that there is not one word of the Apostle's Creed with which I would disagree, understanding the word "catholic" as "universal" and not as an individual church name

In fact, arguably the restoration by Joseph brought us back to the days of the Christian ORIGINAL "Apostles Creed" and took OUT the mumbo jumbo of systematic theology brought into the gospel by philosophers.

THAT is why we do not need systematic theology- there is no need for mumbo jumbo in the gospel.  That might be surprising from me- since I have been trained in philosophy.  But I am a Wittgensteinian Mormon and Wittgenstein himself eschews mumbo jumbo in religion and it is what I try to do here as well.  The problem is we are so mired in the mud of 2000 years of wrong thinking about religion we do not understand clarity when we see it.

We need to tear away the mumbo jumbo of sectarianism and return to simplicity based on revelation and think phenomenologically as our ancestors did- where every event is full of magic and miracles.

If you really want to get into it, contrast the simplicity of the above Creed with the growing apostasy as the creeds get more "theological" through the Nicean Creed and that of the First Council of Constantinople.  You see those philosophies popping out at you quite clearly.  Along with it you see our doctrine of Christ preaching to the dead disappearing entirely for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Edited October 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/20/2016 at 9:30 PM, danielwoods said:

In the beginning Adam and all his family walked and talked with God directly. It was only after the flood that this appears to have stopped. So, the pattern, if we could call it that, is that originally people didn't have prophets, but communed directly with God, then as people grew more evil, the prophets were the only one's who did this. So to answer your question, we can see that there were teachers and students. A prophet or teacher would have a group that they were teaching directly (like Elijah and Elisha). Jesus used the same pattern with his disciples. 

These are not our beliefs at all.

We believe God sent messengers actually to Adam and Eve immediately after the fall and taught them gospel princples, and that Noah himself was a prophet and leader of a dispensation as was Abraham later

Edited October 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:50 PM, Five Solas said:

You're likely mistaken if you think the screenwriter (Francis Ford Coppola) was taking undue liberty with Patton and reincarnation, RFS.  Nothing out there suggests Patton intended it as a ruse--and he made similar comments to a number of people over the course of his career.  Let Google be your friend if you continue to doubt me on this. 

I will accept your superior knowledge of the bio of Patton, a great man by anyone's measure, although I think the film scene can be taken either way -- and kudos to Coppola for a great interpretation.  Of course, I did not say that Patton meant it as a ruse.

On 10/12/2016 at 9:50 PM, Five Solas said:

Regarding your last couple of sentences--I haven't questioned anyone's sincerity on this thread.  And I find your examples of respected African-American social commentators disconcerting.  I've shown no disrespect to either--and there's no evident connection between them & the discussion that's unfolded in this thread.  Did you intend a non sequitur just to try to rattle me?  If so, mission accomplished...

;0)

--Erik

I was not trying to rattle you (which is to question my sincerity), nor was my comment a non sequitur, Erik.  My apologies.  I was referring to your comment that "a much more interesting question, at least in my mind, is how much his belief in reincarnation contributed to his strength and ability as an American general?  And likewise your heart-felt, gut level belief in a pre-existence no doubt makes you a better Mormon."  The comparison was invidious as a criticism of false belief.  In any case, I don't think of Tavis Smiley and his buddy Professor Cornel West as African-Americans, but as a couple of the most important intellectuals in America (men whom I greatly admire) -- both of whom regularly say "Keep the faith," with an intense non-Mormon religious faith which each continues to have, i.e., with great sincerity.  I can't imagine why you would find that "disconcerting," if, as you say, they are so "respected."  I do try to avoid snide and insincere comments at all times and in all places.  So, if I go over the line, please call me on it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, paulhadik said:

I still reject the threads initial argument that there is such a thing as an uninformed evangelical. We believe that upon salvation we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit and the fruits that result are directly attributed to the Spirit's work in our lives. Unless the Holy Spirit is Himself uninformed you are simply talking about lost people who claim to be something they aren't mfbukowski.

Well I am not sure what those few last words there mean, probably a typo or word left out, BUT guess what?::

THIS

Quote

We believe that upon salvation we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit and the fruits that result are directly attributed to the Spirit's work in our lives

Changing your word "salvation" to "confirmation" is exactly Mormon doctrine, which I think bolsters my argument

Again I DID NOT put forth the thesis that there ARE "uninformed Evangelicals"- that is simply my characterization of the article quoted in the OP

That is at least the fourth time I have said that and you are still not understanding or acknowledging that.

All my buddies like Cal and the others like you and know you- I am sorry I don't.  I am not that nasty a fellow once you get to know me- just read the OP please so you can understand my argument.

I am not making this up- it is an EV who wrote the article, not me!!  At some point in life we have to fact the facts

As it is you are ignoring my argument and we are not discussing it, the argument to which you are responding is not mine.  You are worried about EV theology and my point is not about EV theology at all but about what most EV's actually believe as evidenced by the article.

I don't care about the theology- I care about the beliefs.  See the difference??  See this post just above  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68204-theologically-uninformed-evangelicals-and-lds-beliefs/?do=findComment&comment=1209671089

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

You  win. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by cdowis

[paulhadik]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am not sure what those few last words there mean, probably a typo or word left out, BUT guess what?::

THIS

Changing your word "salvation" to "confirmation" is exactly Mormon doctrine, which I think bolsters my argument

Again I DID NOT put forth the thesis that there ARE "uninformed Evangelicals"- that is simply my characterization of the article quoted in the OP

That is at least the fourth time I have said that and you are still not understanding or acknowledging that.

All my buddies like Cal and the others like you and know you- I am sorry I don't.  I am not that nasty a fellow once you get to know me- just read the OP please so you can understand my argument.

I am not making this up- it is an EV who wrote the article, not me!!  At some point in life we have to fact the facts

As it is you are ignoring my argument and we are not discussing it, the argument to which you are responding is not mine.  You are worried about EV theology and my point is not about EV theology at all but about what most EV's actually believe as evidenced by the article.

I don't care about the theology- I care about the beliefs.  See the difference??  See this post just above  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68204-theologically-uninformed-evangelicals-and-lds-beliefs/?do=findComment&comment=1209671089

 

My humble apologies. I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with the pov of the thread not you directly (although you seem to agree with the idea but why quibble).  The idea that you don't care about theology but instead beliefs is interesting. Can a member of the LDS church believe anything they want and still be LDS? That is the argument I am making against the thread title. 

paul

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, paulhadik said:

My humble apologies. I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with the pov of the thread not you directly (although you seem to agree with the idea but why quibble).  The idea that you don't care about theology but instead beliefs is interesting. Can a member of the LDS church believe anything they want and still be LDS? That is the argument I am making against the thread title. 

paul

The truth is you have to be able to HONESTLY pass a temple recommend interview based on a few very central beliefs and then within that framework there is a lot of freedom.

Some writers maintain that we actually have no doctrine and no orthodoxy, just "orthopraxis"- correct behavior

Joseph himself promoted that kind of belief - I will make it easy on myself by quoting an article that I wrote which in turn quotes Teryl Givens- a noted Mormon author- which in turh quotes Joseph.   :

Quote

 

In the first generation of the Mormon Church, the picture is especially complicated, for several reasons. First is because Smith hated dogma and tests of orthodoxy. A revelation declared him “a seer, translator, and prophet,” but his calling as a prophet was some years morphing into the virtual office of Prophet. (The first was a function of his revelatory experience; the second was an institutionally defined position in an ecclesiastical hierarchy.) Joseph Smith was as likely to promote openness as to exert his authority. He severely rebuked his own brother Hyrum for performing unauthorized rituals. But in another case, he “did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine” when a council met to discipline Pelatiah Brown for speculating on the meaning of portions of the book of Revelation. “It looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” … A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it. (18–19)

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Blake Ostler, ironically who has written many books on Mormon Theology says this:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

Quote

 

I interact with evangelicals regarding LDS beliefs. Our way of approaching issues of “doctrine” drives them crazy because they feel like they are shooting at a moving target. It seems to me that they are shooting at no target at all. We approach the way of being in relation to God so differently that we are not really even talking to each other about doctrine. Let me explain.

The notion of “doctrine” is that of a carefully formulated or set of beliefs that are adopted as definitive for a “religion”. For traditional Christians, “doctrine” means the set of propositions affirmed in the creeds or in carefully thought through statements about belief. The careful statements at Trent or Chalcedon were worked out by scholars skilled in elucidating “doctrine”. The LDS Church started out in this vein. Section 20 of the D&C was intended as the Articles of the Church which set forth its basic beliefs and practices. However, Section 20 was a statement at the beginning of an incredible deluge of revelation — and the revelations that have followed have not been nor can they be so easily formulated. We’re still drowning in this deluge and we’re not sure how to navigate these waters. We have no doctrine of “grace” though we know grace. We have no doctrine of the “Trinity” though we know God. We have no doctrine of “baptism” though we have baptismal practices and baptize.

With due respect to Bruce McConkie, I propose that we now have no Mormon “doctrine” whatsoever. There are a few very basic assertions that are not really theological in nature that define what is essential — and these questions are those of the temple recommend interview. What is essential is orthopraxis or what we do and are rather than the content of our beliefs. What that means is that it is pretty difficult to be right or wrong about LDS “doctrine”. I don’t know anyone who has been excommunicated for having wrong ideas — I know some who have been because what they taught essentially undermined and usurped priesthood hierarchical authority. The real issue is almost always political it seems to me.

 

Here are his books on theology

http://blakeostler.com/complete_works.html

Why is this?

Because we have an open canon! We believe in a dynamic God who gives "news flashes" to humanity and teaches us what we need to know and learn and it changes over time.

We are not restricted by the pagan Greek notion that "truth is static and unchanging" because to the Greeks "perfect" meant "unchanging" and of course God must be perfect and therefore unchanging.  We believe in an immanent God who is affected by emotions, plans for His children and is capable of making changes and corrections as he inspires us in our lives

If you understand the idea of a transcendent God- a truly transcendent God cannot interact with his children.  That is another central paradox of sectarian Christianity- a God who is everywhere and nowhere and of a different nature than men, but yet somehow our "father".

I know it's a "mystery".  Fine.

Our God is a glorified man who really is our Father.  Easy to understand.  You go to Dad and he does what's best for you and teaches you individually.  What YOU need to believe may not be what I need to believe, except in the large parameters- atonement, resurrection, etc.   Every child is different and works out their own lives- THAT is what the Mormon God does for us as well.  We can metaphorically be a Doctor or a shoemaker and adjust the faith accordingly.  We can be literalist or wildly symbolically figurative in our perceptions and still get through a temple recommend interview about our conduct.

That is the miracle of Mormonism  to me.

Edited October 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

I'm really curious what the several advocates of Mormons-have-no-theology on this forum make of James E. Talmage & his work, Jesus the Christ--a textbook definition/example of systematic theology as ever there was.

Is Talmage's legacy an embarrassment to what 3DOP calls, "Modern Mormonism" (near top of page 5) and best ignored/forgotten?  Or do you pretend his work must have been something else?

--Erik

[Five Solas]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Some writers maintain that we actually have no doctrine and no orthodoxy, just "orthopraxis"- correct behavior

Joseph himself promoted that kind of belief...

Kinda what I said back on the top of page 4.  What matters in Mormonism is that you obey whatever the current prophet/leadership might tell you (including, of course, what he might tell you to say and believe).  When I wrote it, kicked up a fuss.  When you wrote it, a certain calmness prevails.  

Funny how there's so much surface tension, while so much underlying agreement.  Sometimes I think it matters more--the messenger over the actual message. 

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'm really curious what the several advocates of Mormons-have-no-theology on this forum make of James E. Talmage & his work, Jesus the Christ--a textbook definition/example of systematic theology as ever there was.

Is Talmage's legacy an embarrassment to what 3DOP calls, "Modern Mormonism" (near top of page 5) and best ignored/forgotten?  Or do you pretend his work must have been something else?

--Erik

You ought also to mention B. H. Robert's Seventy's Course in Theology, and a number of other such books which have appeared over the years.  However, none of those works (Roberts, Talmage, et al.) actually constitute "systematic theology," which is more scholastic in orientation -- such as with Thomas Aquinas, whose systematic theology is a complex system which has become the official theology of Catholicism.  The Mormons have nothing remotely like that, and regularly eschew systematic theology.  What the Mormons do have is orthopraxy, which means religion as a way of life, or belief in actu.  Mormonism also has a plethora of ordinances/sacraments and a great deal of religious symbolism.  However, again, these have not been the subject of systematic commentary or explication.

[Five Solas]

On 10/20/2016 at 8:09 AM, Calm said:

And if they are reading the Bible on its own and coming to conclusions closer to LDS doctrine than traditional evangelical theology, that should have some interesting implications, should it not? 

Yes, it certainly would.  But it's all hypothetical, as you acknowledge in your second word, "if." 

And *if* LDS had confidence the Bible leads its readers away from "evangelical theology" and toward LDS un-theology (or whatever we're now supposed to call it)--you'd think they'd hold it in a little higher regard, not insist it's been systematically stripped of "plain and precious truths," etc.  You impeach the witness when you don't like what the witness has to say.

And where does the Bible get you, when you believe "Sola Scriptura" (the second of the Five Solas from whence I take my forum user name)?  Does it look like Mormonism?  Or does it look like the Protestant Reformation?  I submit history has already answered that one, Calm.

:0)

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Kinda what I said back on the top of page 4.  What matters in Mormonism is that you obey whatever the current prophet/leadership might tell you (including, of course, what he might tell you to say and believe).  When I wrote it, kicked up a fuss.  When you wrote it, a certain calmness prevails.  

Funny how there's so much surface tension, while so much underlying agreement.  Sometimes I think it matters more--the messenger over the actual message. 

--Erik

You probably misunderstand what Bukowski and others have said.  While it is true that the biblical prophets say that obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22), what they mean is that God prefers to be obeyed, rather than someone offering a sacrifice to him.  Just going through the motions is insincere and unsatisfactory purely as a practical matter, from the Mormon point of view.  By all means, pay your tithing, but do not do so petulantly or resentfully -- which makes such an offering worthless in God's eyes.  God is more interested in a pure and humble heart than in outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7).  If you put an unholy twist on it, of course you will stir things up.  You need to understand that one must obey God, not man, and that the Holy Spirit is the source of inspiration and confirmation in all matters of obedience and truth-seeking.  If you put a ridiculous claim of lockstep obedience on Mormonism, then of course we will think that you just don't get it, Erik.

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, paulhadik said:

Roars

I have found it interesting the last couple years, watching the USA from afar and seeing the final seismic convulsions of morality, the number of Catholic Bishops and strong EV pastors remind the public that we as believers place ourselves under an authority and therefore we aren't swayed by public pressure and changing social mores. I feel there is a day coming when many of us will (as II Cor. says) be comforting one another as the Lord has comforted us.

Kind of makes me wonder how Dr. Peterson responds (if what you say is correct) to this new liberal Mormonism. I look forward to meeting you someday on one side of the veil or other for a lengthy discussion of (among other much more valuable things) the legacy of Buster Keaton

 

paul

 

ps: I still reject the threads initial argument that there is such a thing as an uninformed evangelical. We believe that upon salvation we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit and the fruits that result are directly attributed to the Spirit's work in our lives. Unless the Holy Spirit is Himself uninformed you are simply talking about lost people who claim to be something they aren't mfbukowski.

Heh. paul,

What isn't interesting? If it is real, it is usually marginally interesting. Back when I was asked for my interests in 2004, Buster Keaton to mind. I might have given a false impression when I wrote "...and Michaelangelo." It makes it seem like that was the last reality with which I was interested. On the contrary, the truth is that I could have gone on and on and on and on answering the question as asked. What isn't interesting?

The list would have been short if they had asked what was boring. I have begun to find it boring here and that makes it easier to not post much. Homosexuality is the main real phenomonon that gets discussed here. I concede that that is one reality that puts me to sleep. NOT interested. Homosexuality discussion goes beyond uninteresting. But the reason is that I am Traditional. If it is new it isn't true. If it is true it isn't new. (I heard that from Jerry Falwell and the Old Time Gospel Hour. It has led me to Rome, not Lynchburg, VA. I have been more consistent to Rev. Falwell's principle than he was.) It interests many here to consider the novel idea that the Gospel of Christ can be bent and twisted into supporting the idea of homosexual "love". I cannot picture it at all, nor can I understand those who do picture it. I can imagine lively discussion about some new and Restored homosex prophet who claims all religions until now have been false and malicious against the beauty of homosex love. Anyway...until they have an antichrist...er prophet like that...yawn. 

Besides that we talk about words and argue about whether words mean anything informative or real. I have felt myself to be unsuccessful in my admittedly pedestrian assertions about an objective reality which exists apart from a perceiving intellect. I cannot do philosophical rhetoric. That is another reason I don't post much anymore. It is like Kipling describing East and West...never the twain shall meet. While disagreeing, I could connect with Dr. Dan and I think he would say the same about you and I. But the new Mormonism? Not so much. We all speak English, but we don't speak the same language anymore, if that makes any sense to you. No common ground.

But I do like B. Keaton. His expression never changed. Whether pursuing a lady or running from a train, he had that stoic expression. It was certainly on purpose. Do you have any thoughts about why he chose to present himself like that? In any event, in my opinion, he is interesting.

Rory