Church Announces BofA To Be Removed From Canon

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again I am quoting this in support of a catalyst theory position, ***uming that Joseph was the above-described observer, who use this exact image to create at least one of the signs used in the temple. 

I would agree that likely Joseph or most unfamiliar with Egyptian art would see it as an arm.  Hadn't really caught your point the first time...shouldn't try more complex concepts when unfocused as much as I am.

The original has lines across the upper body as well,which imo conveys an idea of fabric more than skin, and if clothed, an arm makes even more sense to someone unaware.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

Weird...the board program censored you as a quote, but not your original comment.

-----

This is unrelated to your position, so just ranting about on the related subject, not your stuff...

Tobler's interpretation still bugs me because he pitches it as recreating it as consistent as he can to both Joseph's description and contemporary Egyptologists (I am assuming he means modern since he makes a point about contemporary translation being similar to Joseph and he couldn't have known)***.  None of them would have imagined such clothing to be short sleeves and knee length, even if they imagined it to be temple clothing, since they were wearing long sleeves and pant length, correct?  And two piece on the woman?  It just feels so anachronistic even imagining it as Joseph or others of his time might have seen it.

If he had approached it as 'likening the scriptures', it works for someone endowed in the early 80s or later.  I would like to know why he made that choice.  Was it unintentional?  Would he have made them longer if he had thought about it?

Quote

The detail in this image was mostly based on my own interpretation, but I tried to make it as consistent with the explanations given by Joseph Smith as well as contemporary Egyptologists as possible.

https://thatonemissionthing.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/book-of-abraham-facsimile-2/

I don't think attempting that was a bad idea, I think more research and thought should have been done though.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no quarrel with that Essay, nor with the notion that some people have that the LOF represented LDS theology at that time.  Some people do feel that way.  I do not.  LOF represents the theological understanding of Sidney Rigdon, who was trained in Protestant theology before he became LDS. I do not believe that everyone has to agree with me, or see things my way.  Unlike you, I accept a variety of POVs.

Your only contention seems to be that the LoF were heavily influenced by Rigdon.  I would point out that a whole lot of Mormonism was influenced by Rigdon.  I've heard some historians comment that he is perhaps the most influential individual on early Mormonism outside of Joseph Smith, and Mormonism certainly wouldn't be what it is today without Rigdon and his influence.  Rigdon's influence doesn't weaken the case for the LoF being part of Mormon theology from my vantage point, it strengthens it.  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

I'm asking if the apologetic scholarship of Gee and Muhlestein has been subject to publication and peer reviewed critique.  Are you suggesting that we should accept everything that a scholar produces just because some of their other works have been reviewed and passed muster?  It absolutely matters what the quality of the scholarship is like.  I completely agree, the strength of the evidence is what I am committed to follow.  I am only questioning their apologetic BoA arguments, not the entirety of their work. 

You seem unable to separate logic and reason from apologetics, and you do not accept good quality scholarship unless it agrees with your apriori views.  That can't be good.

Your answer sounds like you don't have any evidence to contradict my earlier statement about Gee and Muhlestein.  They don't even attempt to publish their BoA apologetic research in peer reviewed journals because they know it won't hold up to peer review.  And I'm talking specifically about the claims they make about interpretations of the Egyptian.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I haven't seen any apologetic comments in his 2010 book (which I cited), so am not sure what he is disavowing in it.  The scholarship seems straightforward to me, and it is the same work he has been doing in the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  Perhaps Hauglid has been overcome by emotion.  Difficult to know why.

The way he characterized his change of opinion is based on the strength of the evidence, not being "overcome by emotion."  It strikes me that the Hauglid example is exactly what science is all about, following evidence and updating theories based on the strength of evidence. 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is the problem with your whole point of view!

For apologetic scholarship to be "peer reviewed" the peers would have to be apologists and the question would be how well the apologetic position was defended!

What you are suggesting is analogous to looking through a telescope to find God and then concluding He does not exist because he cannot be found through "peer-reviewed" astronomy.

That kind of puts you in the role of Cardinal Bellarmine defending the "science" of his day, and with peer review concluding that the sun must obviously orbit the center of the universe, the earth.

That WAS the "scholarship" of the day.  

And the irony was that it was Galileo who correctly understood the bigger picture- and the error being made perfectly when he said "Scripture is about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!"

We still have not learned Galileo's simple point, apparently.   Heck it has only been 400 years.

I'm speaking specifically about the apologetic claims that Gee and Muhlestein make that fall into the field of Egyptology.  Not their apologetics about things like catalyst theory which is a faith claim construction.  Any claims they make that are empirical in nature should be evaluated in the arena of the academy, those claims are subject to critical scientific evaluation.  Interpretations of the papyrus fragments, this is something that is subject to critical peer review.  You can't have one interpretation of Egyptian from non-Mormon scholars and another entirely different interpretation of Egyptian from Mormon apologists.  There are correct and incorrect interpretations of Egyptian.  

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your only contention seems to be that the LoF were heavily influenced by Rigdon.  I would point out that a whole lot of Mormonism was influenced by Rigdon.  I've heard some historians comment that he is perhaps the most influential individual on early Mormonism outside of Joseph Smith, and Mormonism certainly wouldn't be what it is today without Rigdon and his influence.  Rigdon's influence doesn't weaken the case for the LoF being part of Mormon theology from my vantage point, it strengthens it. 

Rigdon undoubtedly did have a strong influence on the LDS Church.  He was, after all, much more sophisticated than Joseph.  Indeed, you could say that he was everything that Joseph was not.  That does not mean that his strongly Protestant notions should be allowed to override all other considerations -- such as revelation and Scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, D&C, etc.).  LDS theology is, in fact, a powerful heresy from the POV of Protestant theology.

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your answer sounds like you don't have any evidence to contradict my earlier statement about Gee and Muhlestein.  They don't even attempt to publish their BoA apologetic research in peer reviewed journals because they know it won't hold up to peer review.  And I'm talking specifically about the claims they make about interpretations of the Egyptian.

So far, I have not seen you show any evidence that those guys do not back up all their statements with hard scientific scholarship.  They cite their sources.  You do not.  They understand Egyptology.  You do not.  There is no difference at all in what they publish in peer-reviewed journals and what they say on the BofA for LDS consumption.  Once again, you automatically reject anything they say based on deep-seated prejudice, not upon the quality of their work.

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The way he characterized his change of opinion is based on the strength of the evidence, not being "overcome by emotion."  It strikes me that the Hauglid example is exactly what science is all about, following evidence and updating theories based on the strength of evidence. 

I have no problem with following the scientific evidence wherever it leads.  That is a fine idea.  I just don't see that as what Hauglid has done.  Perhaps you could enlighten me on that score.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm speaking specifically about the apologetic claims that Gee and Muhlestein make that fall into the field of Egyptology.  Not their apologetics about things like catalyst theory which is a faith claim construction.  Any claims they make that are empirical in nature should be evaluated in the arena of the academy, those claims are subject to critical scientific evaluation.  Interpretations of the papyrus fragments, this is something that is subject to critical peer review.  You can't have one interpretation of Egyptian from non-Mormon scholars and another entirely different interpretation of Egyptian from Mormon apologists.  There are correct and incorrect interpretations of Egyptian.  

So I guess English is different than Egyptian, because our interpretations are always ambiguous but Egyptian is not?

Without ambiguity of interpretation we wouldn't have a discussion board.

You see "correctness" and "accuracy" everywhere and I see nothing like that.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess English is different than Egyptian, because our interpretations are always ambiguous but Egyptian is not?

Without ambiguity of interpretation we wouldn't have a discussion board.

You see "correctness" and "accuracy" everywhere and I see nothing like that.

a + b + c =/= a --> c

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Rigdon undoubtedly did have a strong influence on the LDS Church.  He was, after all, much more sophisticated than Joseph.  Indeed, you could say that he was everything that Joseph was not.  That does not mean that his strongly Protestant notions should be allowed to override all other considerations -- such as revelation and Scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, D&C, etc.).  LDS theology is, in fact, a powerful heresy from the POV of Protestant theology.

Rigdon had a more established career prior to coming into Mormonism, but that doesn't discount his contributions.  All the early church leaders were influenced by their protestant backgrounds to some extent or another.  Who's to say what is revelation and what is environmental influence, everything is mixed together. 

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So far, I have not seen you show any evidence that those guys do not back up all their statements with hard scientific scholarship.  They cite their sources.  You do not.  They understand Egyptology.  You do not.  There is no difference at all in what they publish in peer-reviewed journals and what they say on the BofA for LDS consumption.  Once again, you automatically reject anything they say based on deep-seated prejudice, not upon the quality of their work.

I don't have a degree in Egyptology, so I can't directly challenge their interpretations.  I'm just pointing out that these interpretations are not subject to scholarly peer review.  If their arguments are "hard scientific scholarship" then they should be published and reviewed by other scholars to see if those arguments stand up to critical review.  If some of these interpretations have been peer reviewed, can you please provide that evidence.  Like I said earlier, I will update my perspective if I'm wrong on this issue.  

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with following the scientific evidence wherever it leads.  That is a fine idea.  I just don't see that as what Hauglid has done.  Perhaps you could enlighten me on that score.

Other than what I provided in that earlier blog link, I don't know of any other specifics from Hauglid about his revised position.  He said that future publications would make his perspective more clear.  He also said he aligns with Vogel's perspective in his Youtube videos on this topic.  

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess English is different than Egyptian, because our interpretations are always ambiguous but Egyptian is not?

Without ambiguity of interpretation we wouldn't have a discussion board.

Language is ambiguous?  Its a miracle that we can communicate then.  I'm using language every day, and it seems to work fairly well.  There certainly can be some nuance with accuracy around specific interpretations though.  That doesn't make any interpretation equally valid though.  

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Language is ambiguous?  Its a miracle that we can communicate then.  I'm using language every day, and it seems to work fairly well.  There certainly can be some nuance with accuracy around specific interpretations though.  That doesn't make any interpretation equally valid though.  

And what is the criteria for validity?

If you can define it write it up and publish it because philosophy is waiting for your answer. 

Yes language works only "fairly well" and that is precisely the problem.

I I tell you what to start with one simple paper, from one simple philosopher, refute it and you'll be on the road to fame and fortune.

The the problem is you actually have to read it first.

https://philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/In-Defense-of-Epistemic-Relativism.doc

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

'well...if it doesn't work...throw it away...this is a new dawn for the church...in fact it is new church!!

Wow...I woke up to a different church all together here...!

Oooo...was this a joke???

Edited April 4, 2019 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And what is the criteria for validity?

If you can define it write it up and publish it because philosophy is waiting for your answer. 

Yes language works only "fairly well" and that is precisely the problem.

I I tell you what to start with one simple paper, from one simple philosopher, refute it and you'll be on the road to fame and fortune.

The the problem is you actually have to read it first.

https://philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/In-Defense-of-Epistemic-Relativism.doc

 

I'll take a look at the article for sure.  But am I to assume that you're essentially arguing for the validity of all interpretations of ancient Egyptian documents, no matter how uneducated and unformed a person is, interpretations are all equally valid because of philosophical relativism?  So the intentions of the original authors that wrote the words in the first place, are to be ignored, because however someone else wants to interpret the wording is all that matters? 

In that case, you can take my replies to your comments and interpret them to mean whatever you want I guess.  

[cinepro]

Since April 1st has come and gone, it might be prudent to add the word [Satire] to the original post heading.  

[CA Steve]

53 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Since April 1st has come and gone, it might be prudent to add the word [Satire] to the original post heading.  

Not a bad suggestion, except the thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion. At this point it is not about satire anymore.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Rigdon had a more established career prior to coming into Mormonism, but that doesn't discount his contributions.  All the early church leaders were influenced by their protestant backgrounds to some extent or another.  Who's to say what is revelation and what is environmental influence, everything is mixed together. 

People without theological training may have all sorts of off the wall opinions, and they frequently do.  You are ignoring the fact of Rigdon's special qualifications.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't have a degree in Egyptology, so I can't directly challenge their interpretations.  I'm just pointing out that these interpretations are not subject to scholarly peer review.  If their arguments are "hard scientific scholarship" then they should be published and reviewed by other scholars to see if those arguments stand up to critical review.  If some of these interpretations have been peer reviewed, can you please provide that evidence.  Like I said earlier, I will update my perspective if I'm wrong on this issue.  

By your own admission, you object to the Gee and Muhlestein publications and lectures without any basis.  You are unable to specify anything they have said as erroneous.  Yet you allow your prejudices to control your opinions about them.  Since when is a knee-jerk response scientific or rational?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Other than what I provided in that earlier blog link, I don't know of any other specifics from Hauglid about his revised position.  He said that future publications would make his perspective more clear.  He also said he aligns with Vogel's perspective in his Youtube videos on this topic.  

Well, then I guess we will just have wait for future publications.  Thus far, I like what Hauglid has published and see nothing wrong with it.  Perhaps someone can point out to me some errors he has made, and I will take a closer look.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People without theological training may have all sorts of off the wall opinions, and they frequently do.  You are ignoring the fact of Rigdon's special qualifications.

A historian who sees the influence of Rigdon on the church doesn't need theological training to make a historical observation.  Rigdon's prior experience definitely contributed to the amount of influence he had on Mormonism.  How is my agreeing that Rigdon had significant theological influence on early Mormonism, "ignoring the fact of Rigdon's special qualifications?"

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

I don't have a degree in Egyptology, so I can't directly challenge their interpretations.  I'm just pointing out that these interpretations are not subject to scholarly peer review.  If their arguments are "hard scientific scholarship" then they should be published and reviewed by other scholars to see if those arguments stand up to critical review.  If some of these interpretations have been peer reviewed, can you please provide that evidence.  Like I said earlier, I will update my perspective if I'm wrong on this issue.  

By your own admission, you object to the Gee and Muhlestein publications and lectures without any basis.  You are unable to specify anything they have said as erroneous.  Yet you allow your prejudices to control your opinions about them.  Since when is a knee-jerk response scientific or rational?

Its almost like you're not even reading my comments.  This back and forth exchange isn't going anywhere fast.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, then I guess we will just have wait for future publications.  Thus far, I like what Hauglid has published and see nothing wrong with it.  Perhaps someone can point out to me some errors he has made, and I will take a closer look.

You could listen to Vogel's YouTube videos instead of just waiting.  

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

A historian who sees the influence of Rigdon on the church doesn't need theological training to make a historical observation.  Rigdon's prior experience definitely contributed to the amount of influence he had on Mormonism.  How is my agreeing that Rigdon had significant theological influence on early Mormonism, "ignoring the fact of Rigdon's special qualifications?"

You always miss the major point that Rigdon was trying to pass off his Protestant theology as normative LDS theology, and you are doing the same.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its almost like you're not even reading my comments.  This back and forth exchange isn't going anywhere fast.

That's because you accept knee-jerk responses, instead of careful scholarly appraisals.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  You could listen to Vogel's YouTube videos instead of just waiting.  

I was speaking of Hauglid, not Vogel.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You always miss the major point that Rigdon was trying to pass off his Protestant theology as normative LDS theology, and you are doing the same.

I agree with that point and added to it that all the early church leaders brought ideas to Mormon theology from their backgrounds as influenced by their environments.  It’s not a uniquely Rigdon phenomenon. 

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was speaking of Hauglid, not Vogel.

Hauglid said that he agrees with Vogel’s points with respect to Hauglid’s earlier published ideas that Vogel specifically addresses in his videos.  

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with that point and added to it that all the early church leaders brought ideas to Mormon theology from their backgrounds as influenced by their environments.  It’s not a uniquely Rigdon phenomenon. 

Except that those others had no such sophistication.  It is almost as though you assume that everybody is as sophisticated as Rigdon.  Most of them had no idea what was really going on, and that is also true today.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hauglid said that he agrees with Vogel’s points with respect to Hauglid’s earlier published ideas that Vogel specifically addresses in his videos.  

Yes, and you admitted that we would have to wait and see what Hauglid publishes in the future to see what he really thinks.  Vogel's videos will not tell us that.

[the narrator]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Rigdon was trying to pass off his Protestant theology as normative LDS theology,

The Godhead of the LoF is hardly Protestant theology. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Except that those others had no such sophistication.  It is almost as though you assume that everybody is as sophisticated as Rigdon.  Most of them had no idea what was really going on, and that is also true today.

Sophistication doesn’t relate to the quantity of the influence of environmental factors, it’s more of a qualitative influence.  

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

The Godhead of the LoF is hardly Protestant theology. 

Informal not formal.

It actually mirrors lay beliefs in many ways of early America. Binatarianism is also frequently interpreted in certain early Fathers writings as well. It's similar to the Christadelphians for instance who started in 1848. Often these groups see the Spirit as the power of God or the mind of God. It was common even among Trinitarians in the 19th century to call the Spirit the mind of God. While many portray Lectures on Faith as anti-Trinitarian there's actually a case to be made that it is still Trinitarian. After all Lecture 5, which is the controversial one relative to latter theology, starts off saying, "we shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The Spirit is treated as the mind of God but still a third entity. It's just that personhood in a robust sense is only attributed to the Father and Son. Yet the spirit is a kind of reified mind or spirit. The Father's personage isn't considered tabernacle either. That's actually pretty much within standard Protestant theological treatment. Often Protestants talked about "entering into the mind of God."  

"We believe from all eternity there was that in the mind of God which I have called its human side, which made it possible for him to be imaged in Humanity; and that again named the Spirit, by which He could mix and mingle Himself with us." (A Homiletic Encyclopaedia of Illustrations in Theology and Morals, "The Trinity," pg 804)

Part of the issue is that hypostasis in the Trinity, while often discussed as persons really isn't person or personage in the sense of common language. Some started treating it as a person - and arguably Mormonism goes the farthest in that direction. But the original language was far more platonic even while breaking from traditional pagan platonism. Hypostasis more or less meant particular relative to the ousia or general. So three "individual things" (qualified since they aren't things proper) in one general ground. The theology honestly is a bit of a mess - particularly the Nicea version. The main emphasis in theological development was more that Christ was one person and not two - as was found in certain types of gnosticism. The Stoic notions, which some Mormons like Pratt became enamored of, has pneuma as fire and breath but fills the universe. It's generally thought this Stoic notion was a major influence on the doctrine of the Trinity along with neoplatonism (which was itself a harmonizing of stoicism, Aristotileanism and platonism). Although in the development of the Trinity typically mind (nous) from neoplatonism was attributed to Christ and the world-soul or peneuma/spirit a third emanation to the Holy Spirit.

To see how Trinitarian Lecture 5 is realize that Orson Pratt after D&C 131's revelation on matter largely just adopts a material conception of the Trinity, probably following Tertullian's Stoic materialistic formulation of the Trinity. While there's a slight variance from the Lectures on Faith it's pretty minor. Pratt's theology is arguably much closer to Lecture 5 than how most Mormons think of it. Of course many don't see Tertullian as truly trinitarian. Although that's mainly due to the development of the Son and Spirit (which again is closer to LDS notions).

Edited April 5, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sophistication doesn’t relate to the quantity of the influence of environmental factors, it’s more of a qualitative influence.  

Aside from missing the basics of formal LDS theology, most people just don't get it that "Mormonism" is a way of life rather than a systematic theology.  It is almost as if there is really no place for LOF, or B. H. Roberts' Seventies Course in Theology, or any of the current profusion of LDS theological works. Same in ancient Egypt, where there was no systematic theology, but only belief in actu.

[reubendunn]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:21 AM, hope_for_things said:

This is funny.  But in seriousness I have been saying that the church should remove the illustrations/facsimiles and their explanations, from future versions of the scriptures.  I would not be surprised at all if this happened.  

Also, even though this is a joke, you do make some important points from history.  The removal of the Lectures on Faith (The Doctrine part of the Doctrine & Covenants) is not an insignificant change in our past.  And it was done, without the approval of church members via any kind of vote to my knowledge.  So what is one day considered inspired scripture, is the next day relegated to non canon status.  So, there is a precedent for this kind of an arbitrary change.  

Lectures on Faith were never canonized nor part of the Doctrines and Covenants; the removal of these lectures had zero effect on the doctrinal teachings of the Church. 

Regardless of what one chooses to ignore about what was actually written about the Book of Abraham, the contents of the Book of Abraham and Moses are more important than the instructional Gospel Doctrine material in Lectures of Faith; the Pearl of Great Price is, in many respects one of the linchpins in understanding the Plan of Salvation and the role that the Redeemer would play.

[the narrator]

5 hours ago, reubendunn said:

Lectures on Faith were never canonized nor part of the Doctrines and Covenants;

You're wrong. In fact, the LoF were the "Doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/4/2019 at 10:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Aside from missing the basics of formal LDS theology, most people just don't get it that "Mormonism" is a way of life rather than a systematic theology.  It is almost as if there is really no place for LOF, or B. H. Roberts' Seventies Course in Theology, or any of the current profusion of LDS theological works. Same in ancient Egypt, where there was no systematic theology, but only belief in actu.

Agreed.  BUT.... I think if we had a uniform view of how to understand scripture it would go a long way to functioning LIKE a "uniform theology"- in that confusion in interpretations would be avoided.

So we would retain the ability to keep scripture primary, while having perhaps a uniformly accepted methodology for interpreting scripture which would also allow for personal variation according to what we receive in individual testimony experiences.

I see it as somewhat contradictory to insist that each person have her own "testimony" while insisting that all "true" testimonies retain certain uniform content, like perhaps, prophetic infallibility which arguably might conflict with free agency at least in principle.  A literal interpretation of Genesis, we have seen, is perceived to conflict with science (though I disagree with that due to the fact that the apparent conflict can be explained through seeing each as a different paradigm or language game)

The question of which member or even faith has the RIGHT "testimony" clearly conflicts with the teaching that ALL may earnestly seek the Spirit to receive their own answers.

A methodology which taught that God can move each of us according to His own plan for us as individuals, would go a long way toward making our insistence on" having our own testimonies" consistent with individual growth and gospel maturation. 

One does not expect a primary child to have the same kind of testimony as a BYU PhD.   Yet we see those kind of discussions here on this board all the time coming from new converts or others who may not fully understand the gospel,  accusing others of near apostasy because their personal testimony disagrees with the other person's testimony.

And so I think a uniform understanding about how gospel interpretation happens would be a great step for unification, even if we acknowledge that there will never be - and should not be- a "systematic theology" which puts "the philosophies of men" ahead of personal revelation- ie: scripture- of our own or anciently revealed.  

I think some kind of mechanism for teaching literary hermeneutics  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics early on is essential to achieving this kind of goal.  One may start out with the idea of the "Tower of Babel" for example- teaching how God "confounded" language, and the implications of that for scripture itself.  How does language function in our lives?  How do we interpret what others say, not only in church, but in life in general?

If we are going to eschew systematic theology and stress personal testimony through scriptural interpretation, one needs to learn how to personally interpret scripture! And not in a way which makes one interpretation "right" and the other "wrong", but in a way which leads to personal growth through interaction with the interpretation of others, and the attitude that discussions are about learning how others think, and not about finding the "right answer" which may vary from person to person and how to resolve such differences in an amicable way.

And yes, the other side of this is teaching orthopraxis and that being LDS IS a lifestyle, and any measure of whether or not one's individual testimonies are "right" has always to end in a test not of opinion but of orthopraxis through the temple recommend interview or some similar test of orthopraxis.

And I think the church is now evolving in this direction by stressing discussion over lectures in Sunday School, discussions about conference talks instead of simply reading the talk and being expected to act on it in a slavish manner.

So again,  I think the question is more about a uniform methodology for understanding and creating our own interpretations and evaluating those of others, as opposed to a systematic catechism of doctrines to be rigidly followed.

But to get there, we have to actually teach that.

I think we are headed in the right direction, I just wish someone would stand on the gas pedal and get there quicker before we lose any more members to the old method.  But President Nelson seems to be on that path, I wish him a life span like that of Methuselah !  

Edited April 22, 2019 by mfbukowski