The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_beastie]

He restored the truths by pointing the way. He knew because of revelation and experience. The understanding of God is not something you can learn in the academic sense. Sorry.

It doesn't have to do with an "academic sense". It has to do with whether or not the restoration of "plain and precious" truths that had been long lost means that one can expect to learn reliable information about, say, the nature of God.

Joseph Smith certainly believed that was what it indicated. It seems to be today's apologists who insist otherwise.

by the way, you have heard of the School of Prophets, haven't you?

[_cksalmon]

He restored the truths by pointing the way. He knew because of revelation and experience. The understanding of God is not something you can learn in the academic sense. Sorry.

Well, one certainly can't come to know what LDS believe about God in any sort of academic sense. That's true. The process of discovery and analysis really has no bearing on a non-system of theological claims that is manifestly self-contradictory.

I'd at least wish to know from what system of belief I was apostatizing. But if the prophet himself doesn't really know the theological score, how are the members to know? They don't. And, arguably, they don't need to. Because the LDS faith is not about true, arguable propositions, but about something else...?

Good works? Feelings?

Truth claims don't really enter into the equation. Other than the most basic: Jesus was divine, etc.

Perhaps some LDS can live with the ambiguity of not knowing with any degree of certainty what their faith tradition actually believes about X, but I couldn't.

I don't mean any offense; but this issue just does kick the crap outta my analytical nature.

Best.

CKS

[_Runtu]

I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.

Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.

Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--I.e. as a systematic theology. These good folks tend to forget that the essence of Christ's gospel is not so much a matter of intellectual and legalistic epistemic, but rather changing personal natures to become Christ-like and bearing Christ-like fruits: feeding the spiritual and physical hungry, healing the spiritual and physical sick, assisting a neighbor in need, etc. The gospel is about Godly love, which lends itself less to doctrines exactitudes (official vs unofficial) and more to doing good works and living edifying lives. To me, an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center teaches me far more about Christ and his gospel than a week of scholarly lectures on Christology or endless debates and disputes thereon.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It may not surprise anyone, but I think both dart and Wade are wrong. The "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of the efforts at correlation, which began in earnest in 1970 as a means of standardizing instruction in the church to ensure that all conference talks, manuals, and church publications conformed to doctrine consistent with the standard works. Thus, according to the correlation process, neither the 1860 FP statement nor the McConkie "heresies" talk are considered doctrinal.

But it's important to note that, although the correlation process gives apologists an "out" for quite a lot of ridiculous and embarrassing statements, it did not originate with them. Nor is it the product of "rigid and narrow-minded critics," unless you consider the First Presidency and the Correlation Committee to be rigid, narrow-minded, or critical.

If there's been any effort at a "systematic theology," it has been by exclusion, not by constructing a coherent whole.

[_wenglund]

How silly of critics to imagine that the restoration of plain and precious truths might have something to do with reliably conveying information about God and his desires for mankind.

Joseph certainly seemed to think that understanding the true attributes of God was important, but he was just speaking as a man.

I don't see that as silly. I think reliably conveying information and better understanding the attributes of God are important. It is the extent to which some may expect infallability and perfection in reliability and conveyance that may be unrealistic if not "silly".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.

Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.

Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--I.e. as a systematic theology.

It is, indeed, difficult to have a systematic theological system when there are so many contradictory data in the historical record.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.

And then one ends up with a nebulous, impenetrable body of quasi-beliefs that not even lifelong members have a hope of parsing.

Don't you, in your own faith tradition, call that "the mysteries of God". ;-)

I'm all for striving to follow Christ, but what one believes about Christ is equally important. Anything beyond absolute basic theological claims leaves LDS in a morass of contradictory proclamations.

You mean like this proclamation from James: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (Jm 1:27)

Most LDS, it seems, are just as uncomfortable as myself with regard to such inconsistencies. And thus, the "we're more about praxis than knowledge."

Could you point me to the survey where you, as a non-member, supposedly discovered this about "most LDS". I ask because it doesn't comport with my 50+ years of experience in the Church. I think you would be hard pressed to find members who think there are inconsistencies (at least of any significance or bearing upon them and their salvation), let alone are supposedly made uncomfortable by them, not to mention that being the supposed reason behind LDS favoring "praxis than knowledge"--as if the latter isn't a function of the former (to me it is).

Granted, Christ did pray: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). However, when I read through the gospels, I find very little, if any, attempts by Christ to deliniate the nature of God--certainly not in any systematic way. Rather, I see him behaving in godly ways and telling his disciples that seeing and know the Son is to also see and know the Father, and commending his disciples to obey his commandments and follow him. In other words, as I understand things, Christ intimated that one may come to know the God, not so much by reading about him in books or scholastically studying him, but by following the path set by Christ and thereby becoming like Christ. I believe Paul understood this, as illuminated in 1 Cor. 13, particularly verse 12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." And, how is one known? Christ said: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=9&context=chapter]Mt 7:20-21)

The way I figure it, if it is good enough for Christ, it is good enough for me. Others, such as yourself, are free to think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sailgirl7]

The way I figure it, if it is good enough for Christ, it is good enough for me. Others, such as yourself, are free to think otherwise.

Do you not understand the parable of Martha and Mary?

In Luke 10:38-42

38 ¶ Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Mary was sitting and learning from Jesus and Martha was busy serving, and when Martha beseeches Jesus about that- what does Jesus say? He says Mary has chosen that good part. He says what Mary is doing is good and yet does not say what Martha is doing is bad. There is a time and a place for learning and for serving with works. We shouldn't critisize someone who wants to learn the Word- we should understand the rebuke that Jesus gave to Martha.

D&C 11: 21-22

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.
22 But now hold your peace; study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men, and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men,... and then shall all things be added thereto.

It IS important to learn about God and the Gospel- according to the scriptures and what Jesus taught.

Besides, we are also taught that our alms should be in secret and not to say "look at me- I am serving and doing pure religion and you are not"

Matt. 6: 1-4

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

[_wenglund]

The way I figure it, if it is good enough for Christ, it is good enough for me. Others, such as yourself, are free to think otherwise.

Do you not understand the parable of Martha and Mary?

In Luke 10:38-42

38 ¶ Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Mary was sitting and learning from Jesus and Martha was busy serving, and when Martha beseeches Jesus about that- what does Jesus say? He says Mary has chosen that good part. He says what Mary is doing is good and yet does not say what Martha is doing is bad. There is a time and a place for learning and for serving with works. We shouldn't critisize someone who wants to learn the Word- we should understand the rebuke that Jesus gave to Martha.

D&C 11: 21-22

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.
22 But now hold your peace; study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men, and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men,... and then shall all things be added thereto.

It IS important to learn about God and the Gospel- according to the scriptures and what Jesus taught.

Besides, we are also taught that our alms should be in secret and not to say "look at me- I am serving and doing pure religion and you are not"

Matt. 6: 1-4

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

I don't think you correctly understood my point. I am not criticizing people for learning or for sitting at a teachers feet and being taught. Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I had. I am not looking at this in an either/or way. I agree that to everything there is a season: at time to sit and learn, and a time to act. I believe that Christ struck a healthy balance in how he presented the gospel of love and how he taught of God. From what I could tell, he didn't establish some elaborate and scholarly systematic theology, but rather he discriminately (as each situation made amenable) conveyed basic principles in stories/parables, particularly in the story of his life. He didn't get hung up on whether something was "official doctrine" or not. He didn't seem to me to worry about inconsistencies or paradoxical contradictions that some may suppose in what he said. He seemed more intent on bettering mankind and conveying general principles than on doctrinal exactitude, precision, and consistency. Again, if that was good enough for Christ, then it is good enough for me.

To understand my point better, it may be helpful to discover that there are various instructional methodologies and learning styles. In a broad sense, there are two main systems of thought: Western and Eastern. Western thought is more "left-brain" oriented, and geared towards linear, sequential, rational, analytical, objective, detail/micro-oriented, and rote epistemics; whereas, Eastern thought is more "right brain" oriented, and geared towards random, intuitive, holistic, synthesizing, subjective, global/macro-oriented, and experiential epistemics. The former is more intellectual based (the "head") and scientifically inclined, whereas the latter is more emotion-based (the "heart"), and artistically inclined.

Which instructional methodology do you think Christ favored? Which do most Christians favor today?

While I was raised to think more in Western ways, I have recently discovered (by attempting to learn how to draw and paint) the value in adopting some Eastern ways of thinking, and attempting to strike a balance between the "head" and the "heart" in how I grow in faith--believing that the head without the heart limits knowledge and understand just as does the heart without the head. As such, I find quibbling over what is "official doctrine" to be using way too much head at the unhealthy expense of the heart--actually, in modern psychology it may be termed as "anal-retentive". ;-)

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I don't see that as silly. I think reliably conveying information and better understanding the attributes of God are important. It is the extent to which some may expect infallability and perfection in reliability and conveyance that may be unrealistic if not "silly".

No one said anything about infallibility and perfection. We did say something about reliability. Do you really not know the difference between the two?

[_The Nehor]

He restored the truths by pointing the way. He knew because of revelation and experience. The understanding of God is not something you can learn in the academic sense. Sorry.

Well, one certainly can't come to know what LDS believe about God in any sort of academic sense. That's true. The process of discovery and analysis really has no bearing on a non-system of theological claims that is manifestly self-contradictory.

I'd at least wish to know from what system of belief I was apostatizing. But if the prophet himself doesn't really know the theological score, how are the members to know? They don't. And, arguably, they don't need to. Because the LDS faith is not about true, arguable propositions, but about something else...?

Good works? Feelings?

Truth claims don't really enter into the equation. Other than the most basic: Jesus was divine, etc.

Perhaps some LDS can live with the ambiguity of not knowing with any degree of certainty what their faith tradition actually believes about X, but I couldn't.

I don't mean any offense; but this issue just does kick the crap outta my analytical nature.

Best.

CKS

I do know some things with many degrees of certainty. It helps to have an analytical nature. Gives you the drive to start figuring the whole thing out.

[_beastie]

Here are some of Joseph Smith' thoughts on the matter:

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lec-003.htm

from the Lectures On Faith, Section 3

[Lec 3:2] Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God, unto life and salvation:

[Lec 3:3] First, the idea that he actually exists.

[Lec 3:4] Second, a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

[Lec 3:5a] Third, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his [God's]† will.

[Lec 3:5b] For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive,

[Lec 3:5c] but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Lec 3:6a] Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of his existence came into the world, as well as the fact of his existence,

[Lec 3:6b] we shall proceed to examine his character, perfections, and attributes in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation,

[Lec 3:6c] but the reasons that all the world also, as far as the idea of his existence extends, may have to exercise faith in him, the Father of all living.

From section 5

[Lec 5:Second Amendment] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

[Lec 5:2e] He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

[Lec 5:2f] and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name;

[Lec 5:2g] and is called the Son because of the flesh - and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be.

[Lec 5:2h] But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God and remained without sin; showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin.

[Lec 5:2i] And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins.

[Lec 5:2j] And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father;

[Lec 5:2k] which Mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son;

[Lec 5:2L] and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made:

[Lec 5:2m] and these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness;