Why should someone join the church?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Logan said:

So you're saying that at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion there aren't any normal believing Mormons? 

I find that hard to believe, but if true that would explain a lot. 

I can see that you are beginning to figure it out.

3 hours ago, Logan said:

I don't know that I agree that the LDS church ignores theology. I think in modern times deeper theology (the meat) has been deempasized in favor of watered down theology (the milk), but this was not always so. 

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many other early church leaders gave great theological discourses. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConckie were more modern theologians. 

The church has always emphasized commitment to the church and living the gospel over theological expertise, but our seminary, institute, primary, and Sunday school classes suggest to me that we still value theology, even if it's pretty watered down today. 

Theology is a professional, academic subject.  None of those you mention knew anything about theology and were unable to speak about it.  One was something of a canon lawyer who frequently got it wrong, even admitting that late in life (about a very large issue, which he had always misunderstood).  And this is true of the Brethren today, none of whom is a trained theologian or religious historian.  Of course, none of the biblical or BofM prophets were theologians.  Actual theologians read what the prophets have said and develop formal theologies from their words.

Pious and faith promoting literature is not theology.  Revelation often contains the raw material from which a theology may be derived.

B. H. Roberts took a serious shot at being a theologian, and serious LDS theologians active today (or very recently) include Terryl Givens, Blake Ostler, Lou Midgley, David Paulsen, Kevin Christensen, Philip Barlow, Stephen Robinson, David Bokovoy, Charles Harrell, Mark Bukowski, and others.

Non-LDS theolgians who have actively commented on LDS theology include Stephen Webb, Margaret Barker, Jan Shipps, Ernst Benz, Robert Bowman, and others.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I'm an active member and I see the church as the only one that uses the priesthood the way the Savior did during his time here.  

I also recognize that other churches are quite remarkable, as is ours. Our people are as flawed as every other church's people, and many people outside our church are better than many people inside our church. 

I think people should join if they are looking for hope and if they are moved upon by the spirit to do so. 

Very well put.

[Logan]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can see that you are beginning to figure it out.

Theology is a professional, academic subject.  None of those you mention knew anything about theology and were unable to speak about it.  One was something of a canon lawyer who frequently got it wrong, even admitting that late in life (about a very large issue, which he had always misunderstood).  And this is true of the Brethren today, none of whom is a trained theologian or religious historian.  Of course, none of the biblical or BofM prophets were theologians.  Actual theologians read what the prophets have said and develop formal theologies from their words.

Pious and faith promoting literature is not theology.  Revelation often contains the raw material from which a theology may be derived.

B. H. Roberts took a serious shot at being a theologian, and serious LDS theologians active today (or very recently) include Terryl Givens, Blake Ostler, Lou Midgley, David Paulsen, Kevin Christensen, Philip Barlow, Stephen Robinson, David Bokovoy, Charles Harrell, Mark Bukowski, and others.

Non-LDS theolgians who have actively commented on LDS theology include Stephen Webb, Margaret Barker, Jan Shipps, Ernst Benz, Robert Bowman, and others.

It appears that you and I have a different definition of theology. I wasn't referring to the academic field of theology. I was referring to the standard definition of theology and theologian. 

the·ol·o·gy

/THēˈäləjē/

the study of the nature of God and religious belief

the·o·lo·gian

/THēəˈlōjən/

a person who engages or is an expert in theology.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Logan said:

It appears that you and I have a different definition of theology. I wasn't referring to the academic field of theology. I was referring to the standard definition of theology and theologian. 

the·ol·o·gy

/THēˈäləjē/

the study of the nature of God and religious belief

the·o·lo·gian

/THēəˈlōjən/

a person who engages or is an expert in theology.

That definition is fine, as long as you understand the professional, expert nature of that endeavor.  The brethren, many of whom are very well educated in their own fields (medicine, law, etc.), do not consider themselves theologians and none of them have been trained in that subject.

Thus, from Oxford Languages (the Google English Dictionary), we get the following definition:

1.  

   Quote

   1. the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

   "a theology degree"

   • religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.

     plural noun: theologies

     "a willingness to tolerate new theologies"  https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=google+english+dictionary#dobs=theology

   •  

     Your notion of "the standard definition of theology and theologian" suffers from your unfamiliarity with the subject.  Most people would likely agree with you, and most people would be wrong.  Why?  Because, like you, they have confused religious beliefs and documents with theology.

      

     The 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

     Quote

     Theology

     ---

     THEOL'OGY, noun [Gr. God, and discourse.]

     Divinity; the science of God and divine things; or the science which teaches the existence, character and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. Theology consists of two branches, natural and revealed. Natural theology is the knowledge we have of God from his works, by the light of nature and reason. Revealed theology is that which is to be learned only from revelation.

     Moral theology teaches us the divine laws relating to our manners and actions, that is, our moral duties.

     Speculative theology, teaches or explains the doctrines of religion, as objects of faith.

     Scholastic theology is that which proceeds by reasoning, or which derives the knowledge of several divine things from certain established principles of faith.  http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/theology

     Examine any unabridged dictionary of the English language, and you will begin to understand what I mean. Better yet, take a course or two in theology, either online or in person.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

None are normal members of any of those groups, and all seem to be very well informed and generally polite.

I, for one, treasure my eccentricity!  

[Stargazer]

On 8/23/2021 at 5:58 AM, Logan said:

From what I can tell there is a large spectrum of beliefs held by members of this forum, who I presume are mostly active members of the church.

It sort of reminds me of what Joseph Smith described about the state of Christianity on the eve of the restoration. Folks here understand the scriptures and doctrines so differently. It's like the teachings of the church are like a giant cafeteria with different people picking and choosing what they consider to be right and true. 

So I guess my question is with this great diversity of beliefs, why should someone join the church? What does the church today offer that can't be found anywhere else? 

Like @Robert F. Smith said, and you should read his first post carefully, you shouldn't look at this forum as a representative sample of members of the church. This place harbors a very eclectic mixture of views. Relying upon this place as exemplary of the membership of the church would be like visiting the town of Luton in England and expecting the rest of the country to resemble it (hint: Luton is 25% Muslim, making it is a huge outlier).

In my experience, the vast majority of active members of the Church are pretty consistent in what they publicly espouse in regards to theological beliefs. So, go to a local ward or two, attend Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society, and you might get a better idea of the outlook of the general membership of the Church.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Stargazer

[latterdaytemplar]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:58 PM, Logan said:

What does the church today offer that can't be found anywhere else?

On 8/22/2021 at 11:13 PM, The Nehor said:

Funeral potatoes.

At one time, perhaps. However, funeral potatoes are now available across the United States, thanks to Wal-Mart.

 

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Logan said:

I know some wonderful non-LDS Christians who love God and love their fellow man.

However, since they misunderstand the very nature and character of God and reject the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel, I don't believe that they truly love God with all of their hearts. [emphasis added]

Ironically, this is the exact reason given by mainstream Christians to justify excluding Latter-day Saints from Christendom.

 

[latterdaytemplar]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:58 PM, Logan said:

What does the church today offer that can't be found anywhere else? 

On 8/22/2021 at 11:13 PM, The Nehor said:

Funeral potatoes.

At one time, perhaps. However, funeral potatoes are now available across the United States, thanks to Wal-Mart.

[Logan]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That definition is fine, as long as you understand the professional, expert nature of that endeavor.  The brethren, many of whom are very well educated in their own fields (medicine, law, etc.), do not consider themselves theologians and none of them have been trained in that subject.

Thus, from Oxford Languages (the Google English Dictionary), we get the following definition:

1.  

   •  

     Your notion of "the standard definition of theology and theologian" suffers from your unfamiliarity with the subject.  Most people would likely agree with you, and most people would be wrong.  Why?  Because, like you, they have confused religious beliefs and documents with theology.

      

     The 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

     Examine any unabridged dictionary of the English language, and you will begin to understand what I mean. Better yet, take a course or two in theology, either online or in person.

I know what the academic field of theology is. Like I said, I use the terms theology and theologian more broadly than that. 

Joseph Smith is the greatest theologian of our time and he didn't have a theological degree from some university. Like the prophets of old, he had the scriptures, the spirit, angels, and visions to teach him about God. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Logan said:

I know what the academic field of theology is. Like I said, I use the terms theology and theologian more broadly than that. 

Joseph Smith is the greatest theologian of our time and he didn't have a theological degree from some university. Like the prophets of old, he had the scriptures, the spirit, angels, and visions to teach him about God. 

Like I said, it would help you immensely to take a course or two in theology from a local college, or online.  When you say such things about Joseph and the prophets of old, you expose the LDS faith to justified ridicule and contempt.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Like @Robert F. Smith said, and you should read his first post carefully, you shouldn't look at this forum as a representative sample of members of the church. This place harbors a very eclectic mixture of views. Relying upon this place as exemplary of the membership of the church would be like visiting the town of Luton in England and expecting the rest of the country to resemble it (hint: Luton is 25% Muslim, making it is a huge outlier).

In my experience, the vast majority of active members of the Church are pretty consistent in what they publicly espouse in regards to theological beliefs. So, go to a local ward or two, attend Sunday School and/or Priesthood/Relief Society, and you might get a better idea of the outlook of the general membership of the Church.

Indeed, I do not hear ordinary members of the LDS Church use the word "theology."  Faith and belief seem adequate to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/23/2021 at 9:52 AM, poptart said:

How much did Joseph Smith understand the state of Christiandom in Europe?  My understanding is he was quite keen when it came to the religious politics of his time.  In many ways the second great awakening caused far more harm than good.  Was around this time you saw orthodoxy in the various Protestant (liturgical ones) take a nose dive in places and the other ones embrace the politics of the time.  In that sense while someone may not join the LDS church I can see why many of us here would chose to be as on cordial terms as possible.  Much like Joseph Smith your prophet and leadership have had well over 100 years to watch the dumpster fire that is the American Christian experience get worse and turn into what it is today.  While I don't believe they are true (nor any Christian flavor for that matter) they are right in most of the temporal things I care about. Also, their families are among the most kind and stable I've seen here in the mainland.

Actually, the Christian churches which we consider mainstream today (and which are now collapsing), were strong in Joseph's day, and continued to grow in strength for another century, engaging in very successful worldwide missions.  I have Methodist and Presbyterian relatives, for example, who went on missions to China, Korea, Japan, etc.  They were well trained ministers who took their families, though one was a spinster aunt.  They stayed for decades and learned to be fluent in the local languages.  Some of the best U.S. foreign service officers were the children of such missionaries.  Of course those times are now long gone.

[Logan]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like I said, it would help you immensely to take a course or two in theology from a local college, or online.  When you say such things about Joseph and the prophets of old, you expose the LDS faith to justified ridicule and contempt.

It's to be expected that the learned scribes of our days and their followers will ridicule the LDS faith for the same reasons the Pharisees ridiculed Jesus and his apostles. I Don't have a problem with that.

 

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

17 hours ago, Logan said:

Thanks for the response.

I should have been more clear. I'm a believing member of the church. I'm just curious with the wide range of beliefs on literally every topic here, what most of you all think is the reason why someone should join the church? When you do missionary work, what do you tell people about why they should forsake their old lives and join the church? 

You say we have a living prophet, yet many here seem to not hold his counsel in very high regard while others cling to his every word.

You mentioned the scriptures that are unique to our faith. Many here view them as allegorical while others view them literally. 

As far as hell, fire, and damnation speeches go, it's true that in the modern church we don't really have these anymore, but they certainly existed in days gone by and the scriptures are full of them. 

I can only speak for myself, also not every word that comes from the Prophet, are from God’s lips to his ears. He like all men have opinions. As for myself, I believe the Book of Mormon is the very word and will of God. Except of course the history of wars, and the long explanation of their money. There is also the few words (and I mean “few”) of those who wrote barely a few paragraphs, or sentences, just to do as their father’s asked of them. Of course in Jacob 5, as he quotes Zenos (almost endlessly), that is pure allegory, and identified as such. As for the Doctrine and Covenants, almost every word was dictated by God, no allegory there. It is sad, for decades of my membership, both in General Conference, and in Ward Sacrament meetings, you could hear almost everyone say, “The Prophet Joseph Smith said this, or he did this”. I wonder why, we don’t hear this so much anymore. After all, he is the Prophet of the Restoration, and gave us our unique scriptures that sets us apart, makes us unique, and sends our youth all over the world to proclaim the Gospel. But, this is just my beliefs, and not all share it, so even if I stand alone, I do so without regret of any kind.  

[MustardSeed]

18 hours ago, Logan said:

Do you believe other churches also have valid priesthood authority or just our church?

I believe that God is pleased with any church and its organization efforts to worship Him.  I believe that ours is the only church organized the way the original church was.  Not sure if that answers your question.  

 

[Logan]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I believe that God is pleased with any church and its organization efforts to worship Him.  I believe that ours is the only church organized the way the original church was.  Not sure if that answers your question.  

 

No, it doesn't really answer my question. Do you believe other churches have legitimate authority from God or is this exclusive to the LDS church?

[poptart]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, the Christian churches which we consider mainstream today (and which are now collapsing), were strong in Joseph's day, and continued to grow in strength for another century, engaging in very successful worldwide missions.  I have Methodist and Presbyterian relatives, for example, who went on missions to China, Korea, Japan, etc.  They were well trained ministers who took their families, though one was a spinster aunt.  They stayed for decades and learned to be fluent in the local languages.  Some of the best U.S. foreign service officers were the children of such missionaries.  Of course those times are now long gone.

For me the Christian background I have the strongest ties to are the Lutheran and Catholic church, was baptised in the former as an infant and the latter when I was older.  Long story, one I really don't like to discuss out in the open.  Anyway, the Lutherans here were always controversial, stephanism was a nice blight on the early church plus the backstabby politics that followed.  The biggest thing was the schism which pretty much messed up the Missouri synod.  I was baptized in the ELCA tradition, the more liberal and well, sane (far as i'm concerned) branch.  It's also recognized by the EKD in Germany (Evangelische Kirche Deutschland Home – EKD).  They have a few German speaking congregations here and there, one I know of is in CA.  Anyway, needless to say, Lutheranism here took a huge nosedive post WWII and the politics that followed.  As it is thanks to the death of what German American culture the USA had left, they just could not re-invent themselves.  That and most people here do not care, as it is I'm the last one of that line who knows and cares.  Shame but that's how it is here.  The Catholic church, well, nothing to say they are going no where.  They have the schools, hospitals, charities etc.  I don't say too much, I am more on the liberal side and love Pope Francis and among a lot of the more conservative Catholics here who chose to pick and chose what they like that's more than enough to make me hated so well, here I am.  Would think that's a similar irritation you and others here may feel about people who have "personal revelations" while choosing to ignore the words of your Prophet.  That still blows my mind, him and your leadership are world class leaders and scholars, even my non member self loves watching them speak.  You all are fortunate.  

When I mentioned churches I was referring to the ones involved in the 2nd awakening, the ones Joseph Smith associated with.  Reason why I said they did more harm, they would routinely rip on Lutherans and others of the like for being "dead churches".  They lacked the political and financial clout the Episcopals had (and in many ways still do....) since so many were still so immigrant heavy and lived in rural farming areas.  Also the language issues, not every spoke English nor could refute the errors and heresies being spouted by people here.  This led to the whole "charismatic" stuff we see nowadays, complete with financial fraud, tax schemes, sexual controversies and the like.  This also damaged the services we used to have, thanks to their lot if I go to most Lutheran services it's either some guy with a guitar or something of the like.  It's many things but it isn't Lutheran.  That's why in the end whenever I do go to church its usually Catholic, at least it's holy and proper.  

If you want a better idea of where I'm coming from when I mention 2nd great awakening heresies, here check this out.  It's also a nice primer on proper Lutheranism.  Sad to see how it is in this country now, thank God it's still a thing in Germany, Northern Europe and Iceland.  

The Way of Salvation In The Lutheran Church by George Gerberding | Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry  

If it make you feel any better, thanks to the Presbyterians and Methodists there are still many Chinese, Korean and even Japanese churches that practice that flavor of Protestantism.  I have friends with Korean and Japanese spouses, they get "dragged" sometimes.  THing is, those congregations are fantastic.  They do a ton of charity, have great cook outs, language classes and work with the local Buddhist temples here for the Asian cultural festivals they have here (or did pre covid).  It very much makes me think this is how churches like that may have been here in white suburbia back in the day.  As you said though, they are now collapsing.  Sad.  

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by poptart

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, poptart said:

For me the Christian background I have the strongest ties to are the Lutheran and Catholic church, was baptised in the former as an infant and the latter when I was older.  Long story, one I really don't like to discuss out in the open.  Anyway, the Lutherans here were always controversial, stephanism was a nice blight on the early church plus the backstabby politics that followed.  The biggest thing was the schism which pretty much messed up the Missouri synod.  I was baptized in the ELCA tradition, the more liberal and well, sane (far as i'm concerned) branch.  It's also recognized by the EKD in Germany (Evangelische Kirche Deutschland Home – EKD).  They have a few German speaking congregations here and there, one I know of is in CA.  Anyway, needless to say, Lutheranism here took a huge nosedive post WWII and the politics that followed.  As it is thanks to the death of what German American culture the USA had left, they just could not re-invent themselves.  That and most people here do not care, as it is I'm the last one of that line who knows and cares.  Shame but that's how it is here.  The Catholic church, well, nothing to say they are going no where.  They have the schools, hospitals, charities etc.  I don't say too much, I am more on the liberal side and love Pope Francis and among a lot of the more conservative Catholics here who chose to pick and chose what they like that's more than enough to make me hated so well, here I am.  Would think that's a similar irritation you and others here may feel about people who have "personal revelations" while choosing to ignore the words of your Prophet.  That still blows my mind, him and your leadership are world class leaders and scholars, even my non member self loves watching them speak.  You all are fortunate.  

When I mentioned churches I was referring to the ones involved in the 2nd awakening, the ones Joseph Smith associated with.  Reason why I said they did more harm, they would routinely rip on Lutherans and others of the like for being "dead churches".  They lacked the political and financial clout the Episcopals had (and in many ways still do....) since so many were still so immigrant heavy and lived in rural farming areas.  Also the language issues, not every spoke English nor could refute the errors and heresies being spouted by people here.  This led to the whole "charismatic" stuff we see nowadays, complete with financial fraud, tax schemes, sexual controversies and the like.  This also damaged the services we used to have, thanks to their lot if I go to most Lutheran services it's either some guy with a guitar or something of the like.  It's many things but it isn't Lutheran.  That's why in the end whenever I do go to church its usually Catholic, at least it's holy and proper.  

If you want a better idea of where I'm coming from when I mention 2nd great awakening heresies, here check this out.  It's also a nice primer on proper Lutheranism.  Sad to see how it is in this country now, thank God it's still a thing in Germany, Northern Europe and Iceland.  

The Way of Salvation In The Lutheran Church by George Gerberding | Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry  

If it make you feel any better, thanks to the Presbyterians and Methodists there are still many Chinese, Korean and even Japanese churches that practice that flavor of Protestantism.  I have friends with Korean and Japanese spouses, they get "dragged" sometimes.  THing is, those congregations are fantastic.  They do a ton of charity, have great cook outs, language classes and work with the local Buddhist temples here for the Asian cultural festivals they have here (or did pre covid).  It very much makes me think this is how churches like that may have been here in white suburbia back in the day.  As you said though, they are now collapsing.  Sad. 

Thank you for that brilliant and insightful summation, poptart.  What seems so astonishing now, in light of all that, Austria will likely be a Muslim nation by end of century.  The demographics make that inevitable, as pointed out by Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 8/24/2021 at 11:50 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Like I said, it would help you immensely to take a course or two in theology from a local college, or online.  When you say such things about Joseph and the prophets of old, you expose the LDS faith to justified ridicule and contempt.

Not sure how this conversation evolved. But you disagree about Joseph Smith and the Prophets of old, and their understanding of theology, and the truths they reveled to the world? Having missed what brought about this comment, are you suggesting one can learn more about theology from college, than the scriptures? 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Not sure how this conversation evolved. But you disagree about Joseph Smith and the Prophets of old, and their understanding of theology, and the truths they reveled to the world? Having missed what brought about this comment, are you suggesting one can learn more about theology from college, than the scriptures? 

Neither modern nor ancient prophets understood theology, and that was not their job in any case.  They carried a variety of kinds and types of messages to the people on behalf of God.  The Scriptures contain those messages, but do not contain theology.

Theology is an academic discipline which attempts to explain the philosophical and systematic meaning underlying the words of the prophets.  It is an academic discipline which can only be understood by those who have been trained in it, which is why I suggested some college work for the new guy -- who clearly does not understand what theology is.  I explore the theological implications of the Book of Mormon in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WileB3WVoNm0DlVrLUBRMdwKsrlWLElj/view?usp=sharing (version 2).

[Logan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is an academic discipline which can only be understood by those who have been trained in it, which is why I suggested some college work for the new guy -- who clearly does not understand what theology is.

I fully understand what theology is. I just don't limit it to the field of academics as you do.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Logan said:

I fully understand what theology is. I just don't limit it to the field of academics as you do.

Yes, you do insist that you know something about it, thus making yourself a good  example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[Logan]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, you do insist that you know something about it, thus making yourself a good  example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I'm not surprised that a learned scholar such as yourself would look down on someone like me who doesn't have degrees in religion. 

I seem to recall something similar happening in New Testament times. So I'll take your insult as a compliment.

Degrees at an institution don't mean a thing when it comes to understanding God. Whether or not one is enlightened by the spirit of God and taught directly from Him is what matters. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Logan said:

I'm not surprised that a learned scholar such as yourself would look down on someone like me who doesn't have degrees in religion. 

I seem to recall something similar happening in New Testament times. So I'll take your insult as a compliment.

Degrees at an institution don't mean a thing when it comes to understanding God. Whether or not one is enlightened by the spirit of God and taught directly from Him is what matters. 

Again you are deeply confused about the difference between scholarship and the Spirit, just as you are confused about the difference between theology and religion.  These are very different subjects, and very different approaches.  I have no degree in religion, and when I was young like you I was also ignorant of the difference between academia and faith.  However, I was humble enough to learn the fundamental lessons -- which can be a long, hard road.  No one needs to be a scholar.  God certainly doesn't care what you do with your life as long as your pursuits are honest.  A man of faith need not be a scholar, and scholarship doesn't actually pay all that well.  However, pretending to be a scholar is not being true to yourself, and that can only lead to disappointment.  The prophets are not theologians, and need not be.  That is not their calling.