Dan Peterson on the alleged indeterminacy of Mormon doctrine

[hope_for_things]

On 8/29/2017 at 11:05 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I read complaints from critics on this board from time to time -- including disaffected or former Church members --  that the doctrine of the Church is ill-defined.

In a very recent post on his blog, Sic et Non, Daniel Peterson has taken up this subject and identified 50 questions to which the Church provides unambiguously clear answers. I thought it insightful enough that I have chosen to migrate his list over to this board. I hope and trust Professor Peterson won't mind.

I don't think these doctrines were clearly defined in the early church at all.  I've read enough history to understand that there are conflicting messages on just about every one of these supposedly clear doctrines in the church.  

Correlation has been trying to solve these issues in the recent few decades, by essentially focusing on a more consistent message and white washing the complex history through various methods, by not including it, or creative editing.  The reality is these doctrines are anything but clear when you look at the multitude of interpretations and the evolution of doctrines over time.  

My suspicion is that Mr. Peterson knows all about the complicated history already and when he makes a post like this he knows it will cause a dust up between two sides that like to debate these things.  There is the side that finds complicated history to be faith destroying and will fight against that obvious interpretation no matter what the evidence.  The other side that acknowledges the complexities of history gets riled up because of how dumb those people defending this idea of unity of thought on these teachings sound.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think these doctrines were clearly defined in the early church at all.  I've read enough history to understand that there are conflicting messages on just about every one of these supposedly clear doctrines in the church.  

Correlation has been trying to solve these issues in the recent few decades, by essentially focusing on a more consistent message and white washing the complex history through various methods, by not including it, or creative editing.  The reality is these doctrines are anything but clear when you look at the multitude of interpretations and the evolution of doctrines over time.  

My suspicion is that Mr. Peterson knows all about the complicated history already and when he makes a post like this he knows it will cause a dust up between two sides that like to debate these things.  There is the side that finds complicated history to be faith destroying and will fight against that obvious interpretation no matter what the evidence.  The other side that acknowledges the complexities of history gets riled up because of how dumb those people defending this idea of unity of thought on these teachings sound.  

Excellent points, Hope_for.  I'd say even today, after this rigorous effect of correlation there might be some ambiguity on some of these.  But I would say for the most part, one would find consistency on at least most of these among Mormons today.  To be fair to Dan, I do believe that was his intended context here.  I don't think he intends any message beyond beliefs held today.

 

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

‘Can We become like God?’

Is this really an example of clear doctrine?

[RevTestament]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well since we are speculating, and want to apply science to religion which I never do,  I can see how literalists could take theories about multiverses and apply them here so that each one exalted can create their own "universe" so that God is not limited to this planet or solar system.

And I have seen comments by GA's to the effect of an infinite atonement for all worlds, and that atonement was on this earth, once for all.

I honestly cannot find those quotes because frankly I usually dismiss them as pure speculation, and parables posing as science which ends up confusing everything and making this world 6000 years old because the Bible says so

I see the world in terms of competing paradigms or "spheres" of knowledge per DC 93 and look for the lessons to be learned which I can apply in my life.  I like to think that God is "omnipotent" which means he has power over everything that human beings can know about in principle.  

I don't see limiting the atonement as "omnipotence" in that sense, so my parable does not include that story- my parable/paradigm sees God as an exalted human who can do anything any human can in principle ever do no matter how exalted they are able to become.  To me that would include all we can know about this universe or multiverse.

That is how I handle the immanence / transcendence paradox.  God transcends all we little embryos can understand but is still our Father who can have compassion on us individually.  Another way to say that is that we cannot construct an idea of anything that God can do- by definition

In effect that means that humans cannot even conceive of what God cannot in principle do, so limiting his power in any way becomes self-contradictory if we accept him as exalted and above our ability to even conceive or speak about in any way.

Our paltry little brains cannot limit him- even if indeed in some sense he has limits, and so can be "immanent"

But all of this is the philosophy of men of course.  No philosophy can limit God, in my parable/paradigm

I didn't feel I was applying any science to religion. Our scriptures state God will create a new world, and call the end of this world "the end." LDS - I will call it theology - applies the "infinite atonement" to the next world so that they will I assume be taught that their savior died on a prior unremembered world - I say that is bunk - as well as all prior worlds. If you want to apply God's omnipotence that far, I can't stop you. However, being omnipotent certainly doesn't require it. I wonder what this theory says about Joseph Smith's statement that the Father laid down His life for "us" or someone? It seems not to leave any room for that, since He is omnipotent, and left their salvation to this one world out of the many He has created... more bunk.

Quote

Just google "lds one atonement for all worlds" and you will get skads of quotes

Edit: see  below

No thanks. As I alluded, I am well aware of them, and strongly disagree with that interpretation.

I am satisfied that the infinite atonement applies to the gospel in this world for as many sins were perpetrated in it ad infinitum. I think that is enough to put on our Savior without making this world the magic key for the universe.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think these doctrines were clearly defined in the early church at all.  I've read enough history to understand that there are conflicting messages on just about every one of these supposedly clear doctrines in the church.  

Correlation has been trying to solve these issues in the recent few decades, by essentially focusing on a more consistent message and white washing the complex history through various methods, by not including it, or creative editing.  The reality is these doctrines are anything but clear when you look at the multitude of interpretations and the evolution of doctrines over time.  

My suspicion is that Mr. Peterson knows all about the complicated history already and when he makes a post like this he knows it will cause a dust up between two sides that like to debate these things.  There is the side that finds complicated history to be faith destroying and will fight against that obvious interpretation no matter what the evidence.  The other side that acknowledges the complexities of history gets riled up because of how dumb those people defending this idea of unity of thought on these teachings sound.  

Yeah, there has never been any clear answer in the Church to the question "Does God exist," and damn that Peterson for trying to cause a dust-up over such an unsettled and ambiguous point in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

‘Can We become like God?’

Is this really an example of clear doctrine?

Yes.

 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

 

And then will it be necessary to live polygamy and will we have our own world(s) that we will reign over?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And then will it be necessary to live polygamy and will we have our own world(s) that we will reign over?

???

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

‘Can We become like God?’

Is this really an example of clear doctrine?

Yeah, I'd not call that clear. It's clear in that the sentence is affirmed. It's unclear in that it's not at all clear what it means on key points.

If we fault Trinitarians for affirming the Athanasian Creed without really understanding what it means, we ought be consistent here.

Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

???

Are those still taught as part of the doctrine of becoming like Gods?

Past leaders and prophets have made statements that this is the case (we will have jurisdiction over our own worlds and will practice polygamy.)

Edited August 30, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

On 8/29/2017 at 1:04 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

For Mormon Doctrine, the answer very clearly is no. Moroni 8:11-22 provides for us entire classes of persons who do not need baptism:

While I agree with your point, especially the point that this is less clear than indicated, I think the typical view is that such people would get vicarious baptism if they didn't receive it. The issue in Moroni is accountability and it's talking about baptism in this life. So I think whether this is unclear or not really depends upon how you interpret the question. For the straightforward reading of applying to those accountable I think it's pretty clear.

My understanding is that those who die before accountability either get the chance to be born during the millennium or else are simply given the ordinances ala D&C 138. But the exact nature of children is unclear.

Quote

This question is sort of problematic because of the idea of preference here. We might say that, no, marriage is always preferable to celibacy.

But again we're transforming the question somewhat. I think those are fair deeper questions to ask. However all things being equal, celibacy is not preferred to marriage. However some people will be celibate due to circumstances beyond their control.

Quote

Apart from the very basic debate of what we mean by "free will", it's obvious that whatever free will we have is quite limited. We have limitations created by biology (genetics), we have limitations imposed by society and culture, and sometimes we have limitations imposed by others . The Book of Mormon tells us that our free will is quite limited. And Lehi explains that while the degree to which we have free will is sufficient for the purposes of mortality (we are only free according to the flesh), he goes on to explain that real free will comes to us after our judgment and redemption - as he tells us (2 Nephi 2:26):

I'm not sure that entails free will is limited (in the sense of choosing between presented choices). I agree the term "free will" is very ambiguous though. The issue in the Book of Mormon is that it's using free in a rather different sense than the traditional debate about free will. But I agree that free will is anything but a clear doctrine in Mormonism. Many doing theology (such as David Paulsen or Blake Ostler) privilege agent libertarian free will and deny foreknowledge. However others are either agnostic on the issue or suspect we just don't have that sort of free will. So far as I know it's not a doctrine the Church has taken position on.

I suspect what Dan was getting at was less free will and the associated thorny issues that predestination which we reject. There the difference is a causal one due to our rejecting creation ex nihilo. That is a clear doctrine.

Overall though I agree that I'd rephrase several of the points more carefully.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Excellent points, Hope_for.  I'd say even today, after this rigorous effect of correlation there might be some ambiguity on some of these.  But I would say for the most part, one would find consistency on at least most of these among Mormons today.  To be fair to Dan, I do believe that was his intended context here.  I don't think he intends any message beyond beliefs held today.

I would agree that the perspective he's speaking to is post correlation, with the assumption that previously taught concepts are no longer viable if they aren't taught presently so should essentially be ignored.  He's not the only one, we've had top leaders in the church disavowing things taught by previous leaders as well.  Perhaps disavowing old teachings should be added to this list of doctrines as item #51.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, there has never been any clear answer in the Church to the question "Does God exist," and damn that Peterson for trying to cause a dust-up over such an unsettled and ambiguous point in the Church.

The does God exist statement kind of goes without saying.  Religions believe God exists, atheists believe God doesn't exist.  That isn't exactly a unique doctrine that is clarified by Mormon teachings, its pretty much the basis for the definition all religions in general.  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

And then will it be necessary to live polygamy and will we have our own world(s) that we will reign over?

Well, that part of the doctrine is not as clear as it used to be!  

Edited August 30, 2017 by ALarson

[mapman]

The problem that people have isn't so much that the church doesn't have well-defined doctrine, but that it is refined over time. I guess some anti-Mormons hate this because it messes with them trying to hold things over our heads for all eternity. Some Mormons that have a fundamentalist way of understanding the church also seem to have problems with this.

For me it's a feature, not a bug. For example, I still don't get how it bothers people that the church changed its teachings about race. How is that anything but a good thing? I have seen anti-Mormons mock the church for this by saying that God "changed his mind" about race, yet presumably they should be happy that the church made this change?!

Edited August 30, 2017 by mapman

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, mapman said:

The problem that people have isn't so much that the church doesn't have well-defined doctrine, but that it is refined over time. I guess some anti-Mormons hate this because it messes with them trying to hold things over our heads for all eternity. Some Mormons that have a fundamentalist way of understanding the church also seem to have problems with this.

For me it's a feature, not a bug. For example, I still don't get how it bothers people that the church changed its teachings about race. How is that anything but a good thing? I have seen anti-Mormons mock the church for this by saying that God "changed his mind" about race, yet presumably they should be happy that the church made this change?!

I agree.  I think it's the claiming that doctrine does not change or has never changed that causes issues at times.  And the terming of things that were once considered doctrine as being just a man's opinion, teaching or theory.  Such as the Adam/God Doctrine being changed in hindsight (now that we believe it's incorrect) to the Adam/God Theory.  The whole "well, the Prophet was only speaking as a man and not as a Prophet when he taught that back then" explanation for changes is another example.

Many simply refuse to admit that what was once taught as church doctrine has evolved and is no longer thought of or taught as doctrine today.

Edited August 30, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I think it's the claiming that doctrine does not change or has never changed that causes issues at times.  And the terming of things that were once considered doctrine as being just a man's opinion, teaching or theory.  Such as the Adam/God Doctrine being changed in hindsight (now that we believe it's incorrect) to the Adam/God Theory.  the whole "well, the Prophet was only speaking as a man and not a Prophet when he taught that back then" explanation for changes made.

Many simply refuse to admit that what was once taught as church doctrine has evolved and is no longer thought of or taught as doctrine today.

I think the issue is that many people distinguish between doctrine and teaching. If something is rejected then it wasn't really doctrine. A similar ambiguity pops up in science. Are the laws of physics what is understood by physics or are they whats real in the universe? You'll find physicists looking askance if you say the laws of physics change. Yet it's really exactly the same kind of linguistic issue going on as when you say doctrine changes.

If people were to say "church teaching" there's be lots less confusion and equivocation going on.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is that many people distinguish between doctrine and teaching. If something is rejected then it wasn't really doctrine.

And that's where the entire definition of what church doctrine is becomes hazy and convenient to deny.  I would think something that was taught by a Prophet for many years and was so important that he had it added as part of the teachings in the temple, would have been considered church doctrine at that time.   Brigham Young called his Adam/God teachings "doctrine" as well.  And, when Orson Pratt disagreed with him, he had to agree to the language of "a public confession affirming the doctrine as 'the doctrine of the church' or face church discipline.

And yet some still claim that it was never church doctrine.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And that's where the entire definition of what church doctrine is becomes hazy and convenient to deny.  I would think something that was taught by a Prophet for many years and was so important that he had it added as part of the teachings in the temple would have been considered church doctrine at that time.   Brigham Young called his Adam/God teachings "doctrine" as well.  And, when Orson Pratt disagreed with him, he had to agree to the language of "a public confession affirming the doctrine as 'the doctrine of the church' or face church discipline.

And yet some still claim that it was never church doctrine.

Again in exactly the same way as in science. Ask people if aether as a medium was a law of physics. See what answers you get. For that matter for a good time ask people if Newton's Laws are actually laws of physics if they don't hold universally. The problem is that the both "law" and "doctrine" are ambiguous terms and most people haven't thought about how they are ambiguous.

All the complaint about doctrine establishes is a common feature of language that's then dressed up to be a failing in the answers when the failing is actually in the question.

[mapman]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again in exactly the same way as in science. Ask people if aether as a medium was a law of physics. See what answers you get. For that matter for a good time ask people if Newton's Laws are actually laws of physics if they don't hold universally. The problem is that the both "law" and "doctrine" are ambiguous terms and most people haven't thought about how they are ambiguous.

All the complaint about doctrine establishes is a common feature of language that's then dressed up to be a failing in the answers when the failing is actually in the question.

I hadn't thought about the linguistic aspect of this before. I think your comparison to the way we talk about the laws of physics makes a lot of sense!

Talking about doctrines as the absolute truths that we are trying to get at never made sense to me, but I realized that's exactly how I think about the laws of physics, so it makes more sense now why people would talk that way.

Edited August 30, 2017 by mapman

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 The problem is that the both "law" and "doctrine" are ambiguous terms and most people haven't thought about how they are ambiguous.

If church doctrines are "ambiguous" then what is the purpose of this thread?  Why mock members or critics who state that it is hard to pin down what constitutes actual church doctrine (past or present)?

Some will fight tooth and nail claiming that a teaching by a past Prophet was never church doctrine rather than just admitting that doctrines have changed and evolved over time.

Edited August 30, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If church doctrines are "ambiguous" then what is the purpose of this thread?  Why mock members or critics who state that it is hard to pin down what constitutes actual church doctrine (past or present)?

Beats me. I think the question could easily be put in a clearer form. Although again the analogy to science is useful. Scientists regularly mock those who say it's hard to pin down physical law.

I think Dan's point was simply that there are fairly clearly accepted teachings of what is doctrine whereas critics often say there isn't. (Notice how that formulation of the question avoids the ambiguities) Many (not all) critics charge Mormons of being unfair about what they say is actually doctrine or not. But again the analogy to science makes the point rather well. It's worth noting that critics of some elements of science (say people who oppose vaccines or those who oppose evolution) make very similar arguments in terms of structure that critics make of Mormons. That's not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms to make but Mormonism by and large takes a "we're still learning" and is completely fine with throwing out a once widely accepted doctrine as wrong if evidence shows it is.

I think where Mormons sometimes could do better is acknowledging the issue isn't what the church teaches but why it teaches something. The goal is really what's actually going on in the universe and, as Paul notes, we see through a glass darkly. Yet that doesn't mean (as Dan points out) that there aren't many things we're pretty confident on. (Much as physicists are pretty confident in the second law of thermodynamics)

Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, mapman said:

The problem that people have isn't so much that the church doesn't have well-defined doctrine, but that it is refined over time. I guess some anti-Mormons hate this because it messes with them trying to hold things over our heads for all eternity. Some Mormons that have a fundamentalist way of understanding the church also seem to have problems with this.

For me it's a feature, not a bug. For example, I still don't get how it bothers people that the church changed its teachings about race. How is that anything but a good thing? I have seen anti-Mormons mock the church for this by saying that God "changed his mind" about race, yet presumably they should be happy that the church made this change?!

A couple questions about this, because personally I don't consider myself an anti-Mormon, yet I think some of the critiques about the the dominant narrative are valid.  For example, what about those individuals that believe all doctrines are eternal and come from God, yet also believe that the 1978 change was revelation from God.  Most that I've spoken to about this are unaware that earlier teachings about race were so prominent especially things like the 1949 first presidency statement.  These two perspectives aren't easy to reconcile in a logical way.  Am I being an anti-Mormon now, I guess I should check in and see. 

For me, personally, the only explanation is that #1, mistakes are made regularly in a human run institution.  To say that God is in charge of the institution at all times is also to say that God is the author of the mistakes or is permitting the mistakes knowing ahead of time the real damage that these mistakes cause to individuals.  This is an irresponsible God that has real bias towards certain groups of people at best and a sadistic God at worst.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Beats me. I think the question could easily be put in a clearer form. Although again the analogy to science is useful. Scientists regularly mock those who say it's hard to pin down physical law.

I think Dan's point was simply that there are fairly clearly accepted teachings of what is doctrine whereas critics often say there isn't.

"Fairly clearly accepted teachings"?  Possibly that's what his point is.  But, Scott's title uses a synonym for ambiguous (with "alleged" in front of it) and I find that humorous considering our discussion here 

Seems you and I pretty much agree though.

[clarkgoble]

Just now, ALarson said:

"Fairly clearly accepted teachings"?  Possibly that's what his point is.  But, Scott's title uses a synonym for ambiguous (with "alleged" in front of it) and I find that humorous considering our discussion here 

Seems you and I pretty much agree though.

Well I'm not Scott but I think Dan was responding to the claim all doctrine is indeterminate. i.e. we believe nothing. But that ignores the fact that from a Mormon perspective there's things we feel like there's very strong evidence for.