Do Latter-day Saints have the best theology?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My experience is that the difference is not so much one of intelligence or even desire but mostly a matter of having access to revealed doctrine to provide context and understanding. And the actual Gift of the Holy Ghost helps!

I was actually thinking of the kids from my old branch last night and so tracked five of them down on Facebook. They're doing great! All returned missionaries, all raising families of their own in the gospel.

I've never found it necessary to dumb down the pure and simple truths of the Restored Gospel for children. I wholeheartedly endorse the words of Pres J. Reuben Clark to teachers in the Church in 1938:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is deep and satisfying but is equally accessible to fishermen and physicists, children and adults. Tomorrow is the first meeting of our newly formed ward. Our bishop has a bachelor's degree in mathematics and a master's degree in engineering; he works in the space industry. His first counsellor has spent his life installing and refinishing floors. His second counsellor is one of my former Young Men.

I spent three years trying to get this boy just to attend activities -- no go. Then, when he was 15, a cousin brought him to church a few times, and something sank deep into his soul. For the next two years, he came by himself, with a lift from me. I taught him to drive (every morning to and from seminary), and from the age of 17, he started bringing his younger siblings as well. He and his brother have both served missions. The sister has her mission interview with our stake president next week. The mum and dad have come back fully and serve faithfully.

This young man knew nothing at age 15. (He managed to fail every academic subject he took in year 11.) But he loved the gospel 'straight, undiluted'. I'm looking forward to his interviewing me for a temple recommend next month!

Your culture is not my culture.  You live outside the US in SE Asia somewhere I surmise and that is apparently quite different than where I live in regard to believers in religion in general, and church members in particular.  Indonesia?  Yes I know you used to live in the US and it was apparently perfect in those days as well.   You must be a wonderful person- perfection seems to follow you wherever you go!!    God bless you!

I know of 18 families who have left the church in the last few years unable to deal with church history, gay issues, or how to deal with an invisible God who doesn't "correspond" to science. 

I agree that praying your way through that IS the answer, but guess what?  They won't do that.

One way of dealing with it I guess is to make sure the "door don't hit em ....." as they leave, but they need to have a REASON WHY they should even bother with prayer.   God is invisible, He is not scientific, and simply an ignorant superstition.  Pray?  You might as well try to eat rocks- who would do that?

Stupid stuff imo, but there you go.   No, there the church goes.

Edited November 9, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is a deep belief among some that the childlike faith necessary to accepting the gospel is all that is needed to hold on to a testimony.

Childlike faith is vital.  But more must be taught to be able to stand.

Joseph Smith said: “A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth."

 

Where's the beef? 

 

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why so peevish?

I  can't 'adequately discuss complex theological and philosophical issues', either, but I certainly can share the simple, beautiful teachings that we Latter-day Saints have that provide a fit framework for addressing such issues. And yes, the children in our branch could too. They grow up singing 'I lived in heaven a long time ago, it is true' and 'I am a child of God' and reading in the Book of Mormon about agency and opposition and a God who cannot save His children in their sins. It all fits together perfectly, and as suggested above by InCognitus, neutralises many philosophical conundrums.

I find no evidence in the Bible or Restoration scripture that the Lord has ever considered little children incapable of grasping or sharing His message.

Quote

I'm willing to risk controversy and boldly suggest that if it takes a theology graduate or trained philosopher to adequately discuss an issue, it's unlikely the issue genuinely belongs to Christ's gospel. Something really important -- 'plain and precious', even! -- has to have been lost before that can happen.

Of course little children can grasp and share God's truths. Go talk to a Catholic child who has been taught his/her catechism and you'll get the message, too. Deep philosophical and theological understanding is not necessary for salvation. Faith, and the actions that follow faith, are.

However.

I'm responding to your claim that the philosopher should go talk to the children in your congregation to get answers to his philosophical questions, particularly about the problem of evil.

Perhaps I'm peevish because many people (and it appears you are doing this as well, so correct me if I'm wrong) write off philosophy as something useless, meaningless, or even counterproductive. I know LDS have the derogatory phrase "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" and that seems to support the idea that philosophy is somehow dangerous. In that second post you actually state directly that any sort of complex philosophy or theology doesn't have a place in Christ's gospel. You disparage the field of knowledge that is the queen of the sciences. It's strikingly anti-intellectual.

I have a degree in philosophy and have dealt with many people who have this attitude. It largely stems from ignorance as to what philosophy is and what it does. I noticed that mfbukowski came out in defense of philosophy... well, he's a philosopher, too, and I'm sure he's had the same experiences I have had with people denigrating philosophical inquiry. He's the one who is always trying to turn you LDS folk into post-modern pragmatic philosophers  

I appreciate that Catholicism teaches that childlike faith is necessary. I also appreciate that Catholicism honors and encourages deep philosophical and theological explorations, that it has nurtured some of the greatest thinkers in western civilization, and that it embraces intellectual endeavors when it comes to the nature and understanding of God. Greater understanding and intelligence is not seen as a weakness in Catholicism, nor as a sign of apostasy. It is a sign of growing closer to God, since God is the greatest intelligence.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your culture is not my culture.  You live outside the US in SE Asia somewhere I surmise and that is apparently quite different than where I live in regard to believers in religion in general, and church members in particular.  Indonesia?  Yes I know you used to live in the US and it was apparently perfect in those days as well.   You must be a wonderful person- perfection seems to follow you wherever you go!!    God bless you!

I know of 18 families who have left the church in the last few years unable to deal with church history, gay issues, or how to deal with an invisible God who doesn't "correspond" to science. 

I agree that praying your way through that IS the answer, but guess what?  They won't do that.

One way of dealing with it I guess is to make sure the "door don't hit em ....." as they leave, but they need to have a REASON WHY they should even bother with prayer.   God is invisible, He is not scientific, and simply an ignorant superstition.  Pray?  You might as well try to eat rocks- who would do that?

Stupid stuff imo, but there you go.   No, there the church goes.

They "won't do that"?

If you truly believe that people who leave won't pray for answers, you don't understand them very well. In my experience most people who leave (virtually everyone I've had contact with), only do so after significant study and prayer. But you are probably right that at some point, when the study and prayer don't yield the result they expect, they stop. But most of these people have lived a life full of prayer. They've prayed for answers, understanding, patience, hope etc. When they don't feel like they receive those things they move on from religion. OR they receive some kind of answer and move on to another religion.

[MiserereNobis]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your culture is not my culture.  You live outside the US in SE Asia somewhere I surmise and that is apparently quite different than where I live in regard to believers in religion in general, and church members in particular.  Indonesia?  Yes I know you used to live in the US and it was apparently perfect in those days as well.   You must be a wonderful person- perfection seems to follow you wherever you go!!    God bless you!

I was about to respond to @Hamba Tuhan in this same way. It seems that his congregations always have the perfect members, the perfect conversions, the perfect stories, and that nothing ever goes wrong. It seems a little too... perfect.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And go here and download Floyd M. Ross,  "Process Theology and Mormon Thought."

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/issue-details/?in=31

As a former Catholic I was searching for spirituality and I was a Pragmatist.

I was talking to one of my buddies- also a former Catholic- and he said "You have to get into Process Theology"!

I did, and here I am 50 years later.  It was straight line logic, like I was on steel rails.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As a former Catholic I was searching for spirituality and I was a Pragmatist.

I was talking to one of my buddies- also a former Catholic- and he said "You have to get into Process Theology"!

I did, and here I am 50 years later.  It was straight line logic, like I was on steel rails.

In context of my recent posts on this thread, I like this quote from the article:

Quote

Religion which is rational must have recourse to meta-physics for a critical scrutiny of its terms, its dogmas. Religion often forgets the enriching role played by the philosophical spirit. Philosophy begins in wonder. It is not vitiated by the weaker human urge to seek comfort. Philosophy teaches humility in the presence of the ultimate mystery, not the kind of mystery which makes of its devotee a cringing, fearful supplicant, "but the mystery which by its fascination lures men on to action and to further speculation." This is the mystery of "the creative process at which we do not cease to wonder when we find that we share its work.’’25 The business of philosophical theology, says Whitehead, is "to show how the lure of persuasive reason arises in a world which seems to be based on the clash of senseless compulsions."26

As Dr. Sterling McMurrin has pointed out, Mormon thought has tended to be "suspicious of the abstract and the recondite."27 This has often been true in the past of revolutionary new perspectives, from that of original Buddhism (the Buddha refused to discuss metaphysical subjects with his disciples) to the beginnings of Christianity in the first century.

But, Whitehead maintains, "the development of systematic theology should be accompanied by a critical understanding of the relation of linguistic expression to our deepest and most persistent intuitions."2s The ultimate appeal must be to intelligence, to reason, to the rational faculties which can check the more extravagant utterances of our emotional selves.

 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes of course, but then there is Paul the very learned.  We need both of these types in the Gospel. Here is a confession,   we have been reading Paul in Sunday School and I consider myself to have at least average smarts.  Some of the things Paul writes I cannot process.  I know each word he uses but the way he puts them together many times I am baffled.  What a great missionary he was with his powerful eloquence and testimony.

The interesting thing about Paul is that he brings together the best of educated reasoning with the simple testimony of the Holy Ghost. and there is a place for both.   We see Paul's pattern in his missionary journeys, of meeting with the Jews in their synagogues and reasoning with them out of the scriptures (like in Acts 17:2), but also saying things like, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:25), and "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"; and "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (verse 27).  He told those at Corinth, "when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.... And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"  (1 Cor 2:1-7).   That whole chapter is good to this point, and he goes on to describe the difference between man's wisdom, and the wisdom that comes from God, and how it comes by revelation from God.  But of course he also uses elaborate reasoning and intelligent structure all through his epistles based on Old Testament scriptures and concepts.   He is a deep thinker, and it shows in his writing.  That combination of intelligent reasoning and revelation from  God by the Holy Ghost  (combined with his obvious love for the people) is what made Paul so successful in his missionary efforts.   

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But you are probably right that at some point, when the study and prayer don't yield the result they expect, they stop.

That's what I meant

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was about to respond to @Hamba Tuhan in this same way. It seems that his congregations always have the perfect members, the perfect conversions, the perfect stories, and that nothing ever goes wrong. It seems a little too... perfect.

Sorry to steal your thunder but yes, I have noticed that as well.

But I am sure that is our fault because of our level of imperfection    We need to move to his mysterious country!

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems odd though to say that, on a board dedicated to the gospel where we have so much contention 

We must all be at the bottom of the pack if we can't make this stuff simple.

I see value in this forum for people to ask questions and share ideas, so I'm not trying to put down what goes on here by any means.  I guess I'm just trying to say that we can't totally decide upon truth based on which side has the best debate team.   There has to be a lot more to it than that.  I like listening to debates on religion topics, and they are rarely satisfying to me even if "my side" (if I have a side in the topic) tends to come out on top.  Many of them are quite frustrating because there are always unanswered questions, and maybe the guy that was supporting "my side" said some dumb things or never got a chance to address something that the opponent brought up, or maybe he brought up some really good points that were ignored by the opponent.  It's just frustrating.  

And in philosophy, I think the whole "my God is greater than your God" debate is what led to some of the theological problems that came up later on.  Isn't the idea that God created all things from nothing a more powerful idea than if God created all things from eternal unformed matter?  And the idea that God can do all things also sounds more powerful than a God that is constrained by laws and principles in his doings.  These ideas came from philosophy in reaction to attacks from critics.  But that isn't the fault of philosophy (maybe "philosophizing"), but if philosophical arguments are not based upon true principles then it can lead to some really bad thinking.  And philosophy is a good thing when used with true principles, and the true principles can only come through revelation.  There is a place for the study of philosophy and it's good for all of us to be aware of some of the primary philosophical arguments so we can articulate how the revealed truths fit into the picture.   And that's where someone like David Paulsen helps those of us who are trying to get a grip on things  

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

but if philosophical arguments are not based upon true principles then it can lead to some really bad thinking. 

Whose truth?  Muslims?  Evangelicals?  Orthodox?  Buddhist?  Taoist?  Zoroastrian? I am not sure what "bad thinking" is either for that matter.

Philosophers don't even define truth, so there goes that problem.  Define that and you get the gold ring- they don't use that word much anymore.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Edited November 9, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Whose truth?  Muslims?  Evangelicals?  Orthodox?  Buddhist?  Taoist?  Zoroastrian? I am not sure what "bad thinking" is either for that matter.

Philosophers don't even define truth, so there goes that problem.  Define that and you get the gold ring- they don't use that word much anymore.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

There is only one truth.  Something is either true or not.  All else is p.o.v. or semantics.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Philosophers don't even define truth, so there goes that problem.  Define that and you get the gold ring- they don't use that word much anymore.

I understand why that point of view is important to that type of discussion.  But two passages of scripture come to mind:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:1-7).

Scripture has a notion of "what is truth" and it is defined by scripture, or as by living the principles found in scripture.  And I get that not everyone believes that scripture is true, and that everyone has different experiences, and that is fine.  So why not just live with that?  Why do so many people feel the need to try to attack or change the teachings of scripture, or truth as it is defined by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

[Articustate]

On 11/7/2019 at 6:37 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes, we are quite different from contemporary Christianity.  But exaltation/theosis is hardly a uniquely Mormon concept.
Still, it's ironic that so many Christians object to the idea (and even a few modern LDS members).  Jesus didn't object to it.

• Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
  6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

 

Not to dispute the larger discussion but just want to point out that this is a very common LDS proof-text, which actually butchers what is being taught (God's condescension). 

Some other translations:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 

who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.

Let Christ himself be your example as to what your attitude should be. For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal, but stripped himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man. 

 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Articustate said:

Not to dispute the larger discussion but just want to point out that this is a very common LDS proof-text, which actually butchers what is being taught (God's condescension). 

Some other translations:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 

who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.

Let Christ himself be your example as to what your attitude should be. For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal, but stripped himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man. 

 

And to complete the teaching, Paul continues the theme through the rest of the letter:

(ESV) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ..But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

(PHILLIPS) That is why God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all names, so that at the name of Jesus “every knee shall bow”, whether in Heaven or earth or under the earth. And that is why, in the end, “every tongue shall confess” that Jesus Christ” is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ...But we are citizens of Heaven; our outlook goes beyond this world to the hopeful expectation of the saviour who will come from Heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will re-make these wretched bodies of ours to resemble his own glorious body, by that power of his which makes him the master of everything that is.

[CV75]

On 11/9/2019 at 11:13 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I know LDS have the derogatory phrase "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" and that seems to support the idea that philosophy is somehow dangerous. In that second post you actually state directly that any sort of complex philosophy or theology doesn't have a place in Christ's gospel. You disparage the field of knowledge that is the queen of the sciences. It's strikingly anti-intellectual.

The phrase may be used colloquially as such, but I think its origin is rooted in a past generation's fuller definition of philosophy, which is careful to break it down into branches ("...that which treats of man is called logic and ethics, or moral philosophy...," Webster's Dictionary 1828 ). This is where men's hypothesis and reasoning (included in that definition) can negatively affect scripture.

Yet the definition allows that philosophy, in good faith, can be used as a proper tool to:

"...ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works, and to render our knowledge of both practically useful and subservient to human happiness.

"True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/philosophy

Edited November 11, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I understand why that point of view is important to that type of discussion.  But two passages of scripture come to mind:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:1-7).

Scripture has a notion of "what is truth" and it is defined by scripture, or as by living the principles found in scripture.  And I get that not everyone believes that scripture is true, and that everyone has different experiences, and that is fine.  So why not just live with that?  Why do so many people feel the need to try to attack or change the teachings of scripture, or truth as it is defined by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

Sorry, I don't understand what yoou are saying here.

I believe scripture is true- it creates our context and so is virtually true by definition

It is the dictionary that creates the meanings for our language game- the context that defines the way we think and speak

I have been thinking this way now for 50 years and sometimes I forget the old language games.  My Old Marklish is getting rusty!

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The phrase may be used colloquially as such, but I think its origin is rooted in a past generation's fuller definition of philosophy, which is careful to break it down into branches ("...that which treats of man is called logic and ethics, or moral philosophy...," Webster's Dictionary 1828 ). This is where men's hypothesis and reasoning (included in that definition) can negatively affect scripture.

Yet the definition allows that philosophy, in good faith, can be used as a proper tool to:

"...ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works, and to render our knowledge of both practically useful and subservient to human happiness.

"True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/philosophy

I am not sure why you are quoting a dictionary and taking it as philosophy AND theology

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure why you are quoting a dictionary and taking it as philosophy AND theology

That is what the old dictionary (1828) did in defining "philosophy" ("Thus, that branch of philosophy which treats of God, etc. is called theology...") -- which for me puts the original "POMMWS" phrase into proper context, especially considering the setting in which it was first used. Mingling the telestial with the celestial is never a good idea, but inviting and adopting the celestial into a telestial medium through God's grace is.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is what the old dictionary (1828) did in defining "philosophy" ("Thus, that branch of philosophy which treats of God, etc. is called theology...") -- which for me puts the original "POMMWS" phrase into proper context, especially considering the setting in which it was first used. Mingling the telestial with the celestial is never a good idea, but inviting and adopting the celestial into a telestial medium through God's grace is.

10/4 Good buddy!

Moroni 10:4 that is!

[Meadowchik]

I think the theology requires concessions to morality in order to stay loyal to it, and concessions to individual spirituality. Both concessions result from a major component of LDS theology: having one's acces in this life to exaltation be dependent on the judgment of another mortal person.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

having one's acces in this life to exaltation be dependent on the judgment of another mortal person.

Exaltation doesn't occur in this life so it is not dependent on mortal judgment.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the theology requires concessions to morality in order to stay loyal to it, and concessions to individual spirituality.

And?  If it truly is God's gospel then giving up our own ideas is to be expected.  Even our own ideas on morality and spirituality.  If God isn't the source of our ideas we should be willing to concede them.

Quote

Both concessions result from a major component of LDS theology: having one's acces in this life to exaltation be dependent on the judgment of another mortal person.

I  don't see why this "nobody between me and God" idea is so hard for people to move beyond.  I  have no issue having a priesthood head.  It's completely scriptural.

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And?  If it truly is God's gospel then giving up our own ideas is to be expected.  Even our own ideas on morality and spirituality.  If God isn't the source of our ideas we should be willing to concede them.

That's a circular argument and anyone of any opinion can use it to say God has willed something.

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I  don't see why this "nobody between me and God" idea is so hard for people to move beyond.  I  have no issue having a priesthood head.  It's completely scriptural.

"Scriptural" is also circular of sorts. A thousand years from now, people could have adopted a comic strip as scripture.

I'll just add that the character of God is still very real to me. Be God real or imagined, I still seek proximity to that character that has edified me all my life, and I find it daily. I cannot accept the church as a special conduit to God because its doctrines and practices are too far from the divine character I seek.