Dan Peterson on the alleged indeterminacy of Mormon doctrine

[mapman]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

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.

I don't think you're anti-Mormon. I don't think anti-Mormons and critics are the same thing. Mormons that have issues with certain aspects of church history or teachings are certainly not anti-Mormons either. That being said, some people really are anti-Mormonism, and I think it is pretty easy to identify (usually by their mocking tone).

In any case, I agree with your assessment. I don't think that any Mormons actually believe that when teachings are changed or revelation is received that it is God changing his opinion about something. I think you are absolutely right that the race issues in the church are the result of human failings and are not God's fault. This is why I think that it is a great thing that our teachings can be refined over time because it does no good to make teachings born out of human failings unchangeable.

I have had a hard time understanding why people talk about unchanging and eternal doctrines as well, and it seems like all it does is set up unrealistic expectations, but I think what Clark was saying does a good job explaining why people might think of doctrine that way.

[hope_for_things]

21 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.

Sort of the same, but also very different.  In Physics a dominant theory is constantly being tested to see if different experiments continue to confirm the theory.  In Mormonism whatever the prevailing doctrine, it is not being tested, its just being defended as sacrosanct without a whole lot of critical thinking or examination of the history of the doctrine or the impact of the doctrine on people or the changing societal dynamics.  Doctrines continue to be defended because the underlying assumption is that these religious doctrines are heaven sent and we are taught to battle and defend God at all costs, to give our own lives in the defense of these ideas without question and without examination.  

Eventually the church comes to a cross roads with some doctrines that become so controversial and challenging to the institution that church leaders are forced to consider the ramifications of maintaining these doctrines or continuing to suffer the consequences.  The two best examples of this are polygamy and the priesthood and temple bans.  

Can you imagine a church culture that regularly reflected on its doctrines in thoughtful ways, that didn't automatically preference tradition and assumptions that doctrines are heaven sent, that in a humble way re-evaluated doctrines and didn't wait until it was in dire circumstances before evaluating a doctrine and its efficacy.  This is the kind of church I hope for in the future. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, mapman said:

I have had a hard time understanding why people talk about unchanging and eternal doctrines as well, and it seems like all it does is set up unrealistic expectations, but I think what Clark was saying does a good job explaining why people might think of doctrine that way.

I think a lot of this comes from some of the more dominant personalities during the 2nd half of the 20th century.  The Joseph Fielding Smiths, the Bruce R. McConkie's and President Benson's and Boyd K. Packers of the world.  These very conservative leaders that espoused the idea of doctrine being something other worldly and something not to be questioned.  They perpetuated this narrative and its become the prevailing narrative in spite of evidence to the contrary.  What we really need is a counter balancing charismatic leader to gain prominence that can act as a counter to those earlier narratives.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

Clark writes:

Quote

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.

This was why I suggested that for Dan at least, some of the issues come from the context and his audience that he is writing to (where he is highlighting difference to an implicit notion - as you suggest here with ex nihilo creation). We do far better at defining unambiguous doctrine when we simply speak to our doctrinal beliefs without the act of comparison.

I think that Scott Lloyd is both right and wrong. He is right, because of course, for the most part, not only do we have clear statements of doctrine, most members can articulate those doctrines fairly easily. Where he is wrong is that we often contextualize the question into two specific arenas. For members, we often carry ambiguity because the details are often uncertain (while the general principles are well known). And we see this play out regularly in the differences between policy and exceptions to that policy. For example, gender reassignment surgery (along with all of the baggage that comes along with it) is a serious moral issue in some circumstances, and completely ignored in other circumstances. The other context is that of a non-member (or member) who doesn't really adopt our sort of fluid approach to doctrine. For them, the historical gamut that doctrine takes creates ambiguity in a way that isn't reflected for believers. So while we can say that X is doctrine now, we also know that Y, not X was doctrine then. And this creates the notion of ambiguity - both by making it harder to know which doctrine should be the one that is used, and also with the recognition that some things that we believe (with certainty) are doctrine now will stop being doctrine at some point in the future.

Clark writes:

Quote

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.

I think though that there is a real gap here. We talk about science with the idea that there are absolute laws of physics, even if our understanding of those laws is limited by our current knowledge and context. People in religion are not so open to ambiguity - they almost certainly believe there is an absolute sort of doctrine, but they don't generally accept the idea that our understanding of that real doctrine is limited by our current knowledge and context. And so when science discovers something new about physics that overturns the past, there isn't usually a need to relabel (historical revisionism) what we believed in the past because we already understood that it was by nature flawed and limited. With religion though, we have this desire to protect the sense that we currently are in possession of that absolute doctrine. So we shift our understanding of history: what was once considered absolute doctrine now becomes personal opinion. Revelation, like scientific knowledge, is progressive, even though much of our religious history tends to reject that notion. And all of this feeds into an external perception (and even an internal perception) of an ambiguous doctrine.

I am not sure that the comparison with science works as well as you think Clark. And I don't think this is simply about definitions.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, 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.

For my title, I took the wording directly from Dan's title of his blog post (as you will see if you click on the link).

And the "alleged" is because the indeterminacy of Mormon doctrine is by no means conclusory, as is demonstrated by Dan's list of items on which there is little or no dispute among believing Latter-day Saints. Such indeterminacy is clearly nonsense if you take, for example, the first question on the list, "Does God exist."

Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

‘Can We become like God?’

Is this really an example of clear doctrine?

The statement of Paul -- embraced by the Latter-day Saints -- that those who are exalted become join-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has seems pretty clear to me, though I grant you that with our limited mortal knowledge and capacity we don't grasp all that that entails.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And the "alleged" is because the indeterminacy of Mormon doctrine is by no means conclusory, as is demonstrated by Dan's list of items on which there is little or no dispute among believing Latter-day Saints. This is clearly nonsense if you take, for example, the first question on the list, "Does God exist."

Oh, I agree with that one.  But read through this discussion and you'll see that it's not "nonsense" to admit some church doctrine is ambiguous or indeterminate (and has changed and evolved).

Take the Adam God Doctrine, for example.

Do you believe it was church doctrine when Brigham Young taught it and called it "doctrine"?

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, JulieM 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.)

The article of faith says that "we believe all that God has revealed." It does not say we believe anything that God has not revealed.

The examples you mention are speculative -- even folkloric -- in nature. They don't constitute revelations from God; ergo, they are not nor have they ever been true doctrine.

I think that's where a lot of people get hung up with the idea that you can't pin down Mormon doctrine; i.e. they fail to distinguish between doctrine and folklore.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree with that one.  But read through this discussion and you'll see that it's not "nonsense" to admit some church doctrine is ambiguous or indeterminate (and has changed and evolved).

Take the Adam God Doctrine, for example.

Do you believe it was church doctrine when Brigham Young taught it and called it "doctrine"?

No. Not all of the Church leaders embraced it, and it was certainly never sustained by the First Presidency and Twelve as a body and presented to the membership as the word of the Lord.

There is a lot in the theology of Mormonism that is not understood well and never will be until after the end of mortality. But that does not eliminate the fact that there is a good deal that can be definitively established and known from what has been revealed. I think that is the point of Dr. Peterson's blog post.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

23 hours 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?

No.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No.

Well there you go.  Brigham Young stated that it was doctrine (and Orson Pratt was required to give a statement admitting it was "church doctrine" or face church discipline).  

You just proved my point  

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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.

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.

Metaphysics.  Yuck.

This ain't science.  Perform the magic incantations and poof!  You are God!

Doctrine and Paradigm:  Be ye therefore perfect and live as much like God as you humanly can, and repent as necessary so you can become as like him as you are capable.

Fill the measure of your creation and have joy therein.

The rest is up to Him.

Edited August 31, 2017 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

Once again, showing that church doctrine evolves and changes (which I'm grateful for....especially regarding polygamy ):

Quote

 

 Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

 

 

Quote

 

Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866).

 

Brigham Young: "Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men."

Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. . . . Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. . . .

Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there . . . (Deseret News, August 6, 1862)

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

Oops, error, nevermind

Edited August 31, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The statement of Paul -- embraced by the Latter-day Saints -- that those who are exalted become join-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has seems pretty clear to me, though I grant you that with our limited mortal knowledge and capacity we don't grasp all that that entails.

So, despite Dan’s claim, it’s not an example of clear doctrine.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, despite Dan’s claim, it’s not an example of clear doctrine.

It is as far as it goes.

Maybe you could say it's not a comprehensive doctrine in the sense of answering every little speculation and question that might arise, but there is no question it is clear and unequivocal: Those who are faithful will be exalted and will be like God.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It is as far as it goes.

Maybe you could say it's not an exhaustive doctrine in the sense of answering every little speculation and question that might arise, but there is no question it is clear and unequivocal: Those who are faithful will be exalted and will be like God.

 

Please explain doctrinally what is meant by “be like God”

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well there you go.  Brigham Young stated that it was doctrine (and Orson Pratt was required to give a statement admitting it was "church doctrine" or face church discipline).  

You just proved my point  

In your fanciful imagination, perhaps. Not in reality.

Quote

 

After Young's death, church leaders began to cast the various interpretations of this teaching as mere speculation and denied that any particular interpretation was binding on the church. In 1897, Joseph F. Smith, then an apostle and counselor in the First Presidency, wrote a private letter concerning Young's teachings on Adam, stating:

The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.^[60]

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Please explain doctrinally what is meant by “be like God”

I think that the doctrine of being able to become a God has remained constant.

What has changed are the teachings or the doctrines taught by past Prophets as to what the entails or means (such as the examples already given).  That's where it become more fluid or indeterminate.

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In your fanciful imagination, perhaps. Not in reality.

No, in reality Brigham Young stated that it was doctrine (and so did other leaders).  He also had it added to the teachings in the temple.  You may deny it was ever taught as doctrine, but statements and records certainly show otherwise.

A couple examples of many from BY:

Quote

 

"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true."

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 331

 

Quote

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revleaed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God

- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, v. 22, no. 308, June 8, 1873;

And, a couple from Wilford Woodruff:

Quote

 

"I wish to refer to the first doctrine preached that Adam was our Father and God. 

Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, January 24, 1868

 

Quote

 

"Brother Cannon said there was a learned Doctor that wanted to be baptized.... He [the doctor] is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smtih nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print it would more than fill this room but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed."

- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, Sept. 4, 1860

 

I could post many, many others from several sources calling it "doctrine".  

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Please explain doctrinally what is meant by “be like God”

I already have.

Please don't ask questions for which answers have already been given.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, in reality Brigham Young stated that it was doctrine.  He also had it added to the teachings in the temple.  You may deny it was ever taught as doctrine, but statements and records certainly show otherwise.

See my citation of the letter written by Joseph F. Smith.

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I already have.

Please don't ask questions for which answers have already been given.

 

No you haven’t.

Please don’t patronise people for asking you to provide more specific details beyond your trite generalisations. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See my citation of the letter written by Joseph F. Smith.

Which is proof that doctrinal teachings change and are corrected at times and even Prophets make mistakes regarding some of their teachings.  But note that even in his letter, he refers to it as "doctrine" .

Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already have.

You did?  I must have missed it too.

What I saw was you avoiding discussing how teachings and descriptions have changed regarding that doctrine.