Created???

[Gadianton]

Most of Christianity has theology that supersedes Mormonism because Mormonism doesn't really have theology.

from Wikipedia:

Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective, with a focus on the nature of divinity. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Please advise me on the Mormon theology courses that exist anywhere, including BYU.

[malkie]

Since Everybody Wang Chung and I were responding to MG's claim about investigating other religions/philosophies, we should perhaps wait for his take on relative nuttiness.

I suppose if the subject of the thread is MG only he should reply.

I thought that there is some value in the question of how a person could think about the relative value of different religions. It is a question people sometimes consider.

I think the positive values of religion are most visible in the main general ideas. To focus on the details which have many variations might miss the point. Of course it is possible that the large ideas may be the things a person finds unbelievable.

Sorry, huck - I didn't mean to exclude anyone else's ideas. What I meant by "we", though I didn't say so explicitly, was "Everybody Wang Chung and I". And by "his", I meant MG's.

[malkie]

Malkie, thinking of your suggestion I find myself thinking it might be of value in trying to understand different religions to ask oneself what it might be like to actually believe this way. Of course one cannot actually be accurate about this but the reflection might help insight. It also might help understand other people a bit better.

That's certainly an interesting and (in my opinion) useful way of thinking.

Today, while on the road on our way to Utah, my wife & I were talking about what "causes" belief. Neither of us could get a handle on what it means to choose to believe something, especially in a religious sense, though apparently some people can do so.

I think I see belief as some kind of emergent state that araises from a combination of various inputs (facts, opinions, etc.) of various strengths. As such, due to new information becoming available, or, perhaps, a new way of thinking about something, there may come a tipping point at which a belief becomes non-belief, or vice versa, But I don't see how I could say, for example, I've chosen to believe in a god - either a specific god, or in the general concept of a god.

[MG 2.0]

Most of Christianity has theology that supersedes Mormonism because Mormonism doesn't really have theology.

from Wikipedia:

Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective, with a focus on the nature of divinity. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Please advise me on the Mormon theology courses that exist anywhere, including BYU.

Mormonism's theology is based on Foundational Texts and Doctrines that vary from traditional doctrines in other Christian churches.

-Nature of God
-Cosmology and Salvation
-Afterlife

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Mormon beliefs about God are based (somewhat) on foundational texts (good luck finding much about the nature of God unique to Mormonism in the Book of Mormon). Beliefs about deity do not amount to "theology". As an analogy, most cultures and religions and individual people have morals or beliefs about morality. Similar to theology systematically thinking about the nature of God, ethics systematically thinks about morals and morality. A person might have very strong moral beliefs and also beliefs about God without ever straying into theology or ethics. In fact, generally the beliefs that are gleaned from foundational texts are themselves not theological.

Like Jehovah of the Old Testament, Indra of the Rigveda is a man of war and a god of thunder. The deeds of Jehovah and Indra are examples of mythology. Mormon beliefs about God are also based on mythology. Mormons believe God and his son have physical bodies and are two separate literal humanlike beings, and this is based on revelation, on the story of Joseph's (second or third rewrite of) the first vision. Like Thor, God the father has quite a temper, becoming irate at Joseph losing the 116 pages. We also learn about Cain as bigfoot, being identified by several of the brethren in the early years of the church, and many in the Church have also met the three Nephites. All these things we learn about the nature of God, in Mormonism, are mythological.

If you want to do theology, you might ask what makes God good, what is good, or what does it mean for God to be all powerful, or in what way does a body factor into divinity. Mormonism does not formally answer questions like these nor formally pursues understanding God in this way. There is little or no theology in Mormonism. There may be one off dudes like Bruce R. or Blake O. who have tried their hand at theology, but none of this is represented in formal theological course study, nor is any of it endorsed by church leaders. You may have armchair speculation about why God needs a body, and cutesy quotes here and there, but there are no repositories of papers published by Mormon theologians hashing out topics like these.

This doesn't mean Mormonism is wrong, but you are the one who made the terms of the competition theology, and then put me to the question thinking I couldn't possibly come up with a religion that bests it in terms of theology, and so I'm telling you, in this regard, Mormonism loses because it doesn't even compete.

[MG 2.0]

Mormon beliefs about God are based (somewhat) on foundational texts (good luck finding much about the nature of God unique to Mormonism in the Book of Mormon). Beliefs about deity do not amount to "theology". As an analogy, most cultures and religions and individual people have morals or beliefs about morality. Similar to theology systematically thinking about the nature of God, ethics systematically thinks about morals and morality. A person might have very strong moral beliefs and also beliefs about God without ever straying into theology or ethics. In fact, generally the beliefs that are gleaned from foundational texts are themselves not theological.

Like Jehovah of the Old Testament, Indra of the Rigveda is a man of war and a god of thunder. The deeds of Jehovah and Indra are examples of mythology. Mormon beliefs about God are also based on mythology. Mormons believe God and his son have physical bodies and are two separate literal humanlike beings, and this is based on revelation, on the story of Joseph's (second or third rewrite of) the first vision. Like Thor, God the father has quite a temper, becoming irate at Joseph losing the 116 pages. We also learn about Cain as bigfoot, being identified by several of the brethren in the early years of the church, and many in the Church have also met the three Nephites. All these things we learn about the nature of God, in Mormonism, are mythological.

If you want to do theology, you might ask what makes God good, what is good, or what does it mean for God to be all powerful, or in what way does a body factor into divinity. Mormonism does not formally answer questions like these nor formally pursues understanding God in this way. There is little or no theology in Mormonism. There may be one off dudes like Bruce R. or Blake O. who have tried their hand at theology, but none of this is represented in formal theological course study, nor is any of it endorsed by church leaders. You may have armchair speculation about why God needs a body, and cutesy quotes here and there, but there are no repositories of papers published by Mormon theologians hashing out topics like these.

This doesn't mean Mormonism is wrong, but you are the one who made the terms of the competition theology, and then put me to the question thinking I couldn't possibly come up with a religion that bests it in terms of theology, and so I'm telling you, in this regard, Mormonism loses because it doesn't even compete.

You'll have to go over to the A.I. thread to get a quick overview dealing with theology and its connection with beliefs and doctrines. I will not engage in discussion over on that thread.

As you can see, there is a question as to whether or not your personal beliefs are congruent with further light and knowledge.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Instead, you may wish to first learn what "theology" is before you continue to pepper the word randomly in your posts.

You can't answer me, because you don't know what "theology" is, and you've been barred from spamming this thread with A.I. output. So the best you can do is allude to a connection between Mormon beliefs and theology as found buried in some wall of text you already posted in the A.I. thread somewhere.

I know you will not engage in discussion. Trolls don't discuss.

[Ego]

If you want to do theology, you might ask what makes God good, what is good, or what does it mean for God to be all powerful, or in what way does a body factor into divinity. Mormonism does not formally answer questions like these nor formally pursues understanding God in this way. There is little or no theology in Mormonism. There may be one off dudes like Bruce R. or Blake O. who have tried their hand at theology, but none of this is represented in formal theological course study, nor is any of it endorsed by church leaders. You may have armchair speculation about why God needs a body, and cutesy quotes here and there, but there are no repositories of papers published by Mormon theologians hashing out topics like these.

It appears to me that Mr. Smith and Co. attempted to establish a theology but that it was stricken from the canon, for do we not read the following in the preface to the Lectures on Faith?

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.

I used to work on trying to establish a formal theology for Mormonism building on thinkers like Mr. Smith or Mr. Nibley. I’ve largely given up the endeavor but I’d be happy to share my ideas if there’s interest. They were rooted largely in analytical philosophy of the phenomenological flavor, using axioms about love to justify things like God’s corporeal nature.

[MG 2.0]

Instead, you may wish to first learn what "theology" is before you continue to pepper the word randomly in your posts.

You can't answer me, because you don't know what "theology" is, and you've been barred from spamming this thread with A.I. output. So the best you can do is allude to a connection between Mormon beliefs and theology as found buried in some wall of text you already posted in the A.I. thread somewhere.

I know you will not engage in discussion. Trolls don't discuss.

If you look at the "wall of text" on the thread with A.I. permissions you will see that your "theology" is not congruent...in meaning...with the A.I. definition of theology in respect to Mormonism.

Fine. It's OK that you feel that way and want to disengage. There is Mormon Theology.

I can tell when I must be getting under someone's skin because they...some folks anyway...go the "troll" route. End of discussion.

Whatever.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

What about the LDS President's ability to override established teachings and substitute whatever he wants at that time?

By the way, Nelson says Mormon is a devil name. Elder A. Mormon Devil.

Mormon, son of Mormon and father of Moroni, all from the Devil family.

A very fluid theology.