Mormon Theology

[Tao]

A couple of statements have come up that I found interesting.

We are assuming that everyone else has the same level of faith in the doctrine and the apostles. Which is almost never the case. You will find a broad spectrum of belief, even within the church. So to argue that "this is the only way that x-issue should be interpreted" will generally come across as hostile, even self-righteous.

...as TBC astutely pointed out, no two people have the same perspective even on a religion they share, EVEN one as dogmatized as the LDS church...

While I quite agree with thebigcheese, I have been a little surprised at references akin to Marduk's (others' as well, I quoted M due to my assumption that he'd not take offence)

So here's my question: what elements of LDS faith do any of you see as dogmatic, or even creedal? (by this I mean an authoritative, systematic delineation of beliefs) The closest things I can think of would be the official declaration published in the Doctrine and Covenants, and to some degree the Articles of Faith. Even those aren't as creedal as they first seem, although published as scripture, further elaboration is practically non-existant. I really don't see the church coming out and saying "this is exactly what is meant by AoF #x..." With no concrete theology to appeal to, the LDS community is very much defined by the "teach them proper principles and let them govern themselves" mentality. Rare is the 'correct' answer to a theological question authoritatively set forth. If you feel that transitions between kingdoms is possible, you can find and argue your evidences, and those who disagree will find and argue theirs. But the kicker is, in my eyes: Neither side is wrong. People turn to the Apostles as archetypes to find support for their beliefs, but even they have differing personal views on such topics and their publications are almost universally prefaced with "herein are my individual thoughts and they in no way are meant to represent official doctrine of the church".

I am not claiming that discussion and debate are not fruitful, such enlargening of understanding can hardly help but be helpful, but it seems to me that if you find yourself thinking "I am right and here is why" when dealing with a LDS topic, you may discover less support than you had previously thought.

[Marduk]

Let me clarify a bit on that statement; the LDS church is one of the few religions that is as intensely structured, with a governing dogmatic body (the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.) That structure has no equal in any other protestant or reformist religion, outside of a few splinter groups of this church. It is unequaled in any Muslim body. It is unequaled in any Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or even Jewish body. About the only parallel that can be drawn is to the Catholic church, and even there you will see far more dissent from what the pope says than in this church.

This is the only church of which I am aware which has manuals for teaching each class, which must be approved by the first presidency. We are instructed not to deviate from these manuals. Every six months that governing body issues statements which are taken as authoritative. You'd be hard-pressed to find a religion with quite such tight controls on how it is practiced. As far as Dogmatic beliefs, the nature of the Godhead is first, what it accepts as scripture also comes to mind, the belief in continued revelation, baptism by immersion, every ordinance, authority by direct line to Christ, the reality of the atonement, the list goes on and on and on.

So although it may not seem intensely dogmatic, as there are quite a few issues on which there is no definitive word (as you've pointed out) it is more dogmatic than just about any other religious organization that exists.

[Katya]

About the only parallel that can be drawn is to the Catholic church, and even there you will see far more dissent from what the pope says than in this church.

But the Catholic Church has a much stricter definition for what is and isn't official church doctrine. Witness the recent-ish declaration by the International Theological Commission that Limbo was "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium" (wording taken from Wikipedia). Mormons don't have an International Theological Commission or a Magisterium or official dogma. Theologians who have tried to study Mormonism academically often talk about their frustration with trying to pin down what is official doctrine and what is not, because different sources disagree (or equivalent sources disagree over time).

I agree that there is a lot of dissent in the Catholic church in term of the behavior of the average Catholic, compared with what the Pope would like it to be, but I don't think that's due to there not being an official governing dogmatic body. Quite the contrary. (Although it would be interesting to examine just why that cultural disconnect exists.)

[vorpal blade]

I don't think I follow you, Tao. To me every General Conference talk is an authoritative, systematic delineation of our beliefs. You don't see any Conference talk contradicting another Conference talk (at least in the last 75 years or so). The correct answers are given all the time to theological questions. Not every question, but what they are doing in their Conference talks is addressing theological questions, with authority, and without preface that this is their personal opinion. When we bare our testimony we are witnessing what we know to be true. Surely none of us has all the truth, but surely some of us have some of the truth. And I don't believe that in a particular discussion neither side is wrong. Very often one side is right and the other side is wrong. I don't think there is nearly as much disagreement among the General Authorities as you seem to think there is.

I would have thought we would be in agreement on this, Tao, so it must be I'm not following you.

[Tao]

Well, it seems to me that the majority of conference talks are of a fairly non-philosophical nature: disagreeing with "love your neighbor", "faith precedes the miracle" or "Christ as the Savior" isn't much of a likelyhood.

But say a discussion comes up in the forums on if it is possible for individuals to progress in kingdoms after judgment. There have been statements made and interpretations given that could give weight to either side of such a discussion. Yet, ask Henry B Eyring and he'll relate to you how dead set he was on the issue until he became an apostle and discussed it with president Faust. How shocking to find a differing opinion at that level, and yet, in the end, it is just opinion. The church has no official statement on the matter, nor will they ever, I'd guess. You are free to feel however you'd like about the matter.

Countless examples exist; and I believe such is the reasoning behind the countless manuals Marduk mentioned. When striving to teach a cannon without dogma, then setting some standards so that teachers minimize the teaching of their own opinions is a given. Consider all the manuals of the church, how much doctrine is in them that is withheld from Preach My Gospel? If you boiled out all the stories, anecdotes and situational phrasing, what you have in your sunday school manual, what the missionaries teach and what you hear at general conference is all very much the same basic material.

Those who try to establish a dogmatic cannon often find their efforts frustrated. (Mormon Doctrine, anyone?) It is well and good to organize your thoughts, to dig into the deep, see what you truly believe; just don't expect the church to back your reasoning as to why we don't drink red wine, or why some hold the priesthood while others don't.

[Hypatia]

You don't see any Conference talk contradicting another Conference talk

Cute!

[vorpal blade]

But say a discussion comes up in the forums on if it is possible for individuals to progress in kingdoms after judgment. There have been statements made and interpretations given that could give weight to either side of such a discussion. Yet, ask Henry B Eyring and he'll relate to you how dead set he was on the issue until he became an apostle and discussed it with president Faust. How shocking to find a differing opinion at that level, and yet, in the end, it is just opinion. The church has no official statement on the matter, nor will they ever, I'd guess. You are free to feel however you'd like about the matter.

To me the important thing is that there is a truth, whether or not we know it or understand it fully. Either there is progression, or there isn't. If someone is arguing the point he is either right, or he isn't. Both sides can't be right. Incidentally, I thought this particular question was answered authoritatively, and there is no debate on it. Perhaps you could enlighten me on what the two sides are saying, and what authoritative sources they are quoting. I hadn't heard of this purported conversation between President Eyring and President Faust.

I agree that we can't answer all theological questions, but we can answer all the questions which make a difference to us. So...I guess I'm still puzzled by what you mean.

[Unit of Energy]

There is little said about the deep doctrines. The only things that are important to salvation are in the missionary lessons and Sunday School manuals, anything outside of that is opinion. Even much of what is published by the church is not official doctrine. Most of the articles in the church magazines have a disclaimer saying as much.

[Tao]

There is little said about the deep doctrines. The only things that are important to salvation are in the missionary lessons and Sunday School manuals, anything outside of that is opinion. Even much of what is published by the church is not official doctrine. Most of the articles in the church magazines have a disclaimer saying as much.

Aye, even the Bible dictionary has the statement "It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

I found a link to an older talk by James Faulconer which touches on the matter in a more academic tone (with all the links there implied).

If someone is arguing the point he is either right, or he isn't. Both sides can't be right.

I quite disagree.

Avram: He's right, and he's right? They can't both be right.
Tevye: You know... you are also right."

Or, perhaps more commonly, everyone can be wrong. Pertaining to this particular thread, I think most people either don't think about it, or understand that the final answer is some combination of "we don't know" and "because God said so" as we await the time when we might know.

[UnluckyStuntman]

You don't see any Conference talk contradicting another Conference talk

Cute!

LOL.

[vorpal blade]

I looked through the February Ensign and didn't find a single disclaimer saying this was not official doctrine. My wife looked through another Ensign and didn't find a single disclaimer. Did we miss one? Now, obviously personal stories and such in the Church magazines are not official church doctrine, but the editors work pretty hard to make sure nothing in the magazines contradicts Church doctrine.

I read the article by James Faulconer and I quite disagree with him.

Here is my belief. God knows everything. When God says something it is completely right. We can choose not to believe it, to believe it, or to believe it is wrong. It doesn't matter to the truth. The person who disagrees with God is just plain wrong. Now, of course, we don't always understand what God is saying, and we may disagree with the proper interpretation of what God has said. To the degree a person deviates from the truth he is wrong. True, everyone may be wrong, and no one may be completely right, but if it is a simple issue of yes or no, for example is there a God or not, then if one person says yes and the other says no then one is right and the other is wrong.

Furthermore, I believe that God speaks to us through scripture. And whatever an elder in the Church says when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, is the will of the Lord, is the mind of the Lord, is the word of the Lord, is the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. I believe that what it means to sustain our General Authorities is to recognize that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. I have repeatedly felt that what I hear the General Authorities say in General Conference and and in their articles was moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

So, I'm sad when I see people denigrate those who quote from the General Authorities as being hostile and self-righteous. By the way, I disagree with the characterization that my use of quotes from the General Authorities was said “this is the only way that x-issue should be interpreted. “ It bothers me when people cavalierly dismiss the words of the General Authorities when moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mere personal opinion. We shouldn't quote what they say when they are officially teaching Church doctrine, because we've heard rumors that on obscure topics they have different private beliefs which they don't express publicly? So if I'm still missing what you are saying, could you please clarify it?

[Tao]

When I have more time I'll see what I can do to help get us on the same page, vorpal. In the meantime, I'm intrigued by what you seem to be saying. Are you then of the opinion that scripture never contradicts itself? Also, you say you disagree with brother Faulconer, could you elucidate? Where is his logic faulty or his assumptions off?

As for individuals quoting General Authorities, it makes no difference to me, and I'm not terribly sure where it came from in this topic.

[Unit of Energy]

Not contradicting doctrine and being doctrine are two very different things.

[melbabi]

And whatever an elder in the Church says when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, is the will of the Lord, is the mind of the Lord, is the word of the Lord, is the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. I believe that what it means to sustain our General Authorities is to recognize that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

Okay, I see what you're saying, so then how do you explain the differences between when an Elder gives a talk in general conference and when it is actually printed? In case you are unsure of what I mean, I am referring to the fact that many Elders and Apostles have their talks edited or changed or whatever you want to call it in the print form of their talk from what they originally said in conference.

[Katya]

I agree that we can't answer all theological questions, but we can answer all the questions which make a difference to us.

I can think of plenty of theological questions which are important to me, but which don't currently have an answer.

[vorpal blade]

I think I now see the problem, Tao. What you want to talk about basically is whether or not the LDS church has a theology. Do we have a dogma? Is there a logical framework for the body of Church doctrine that a philosopher can point to and rationalize a connection between one belief and another? Did I get it right this time?

Now I’ll tell you how I perceived your topic. You began with a quote from thebigcheese who was basically criticizing (attacking) me for the way she thought I was using quotes from the apostles and referring to the Proclamation. Her point seemed to be that since we don’t all agree on how we should interpret these people we should not quote them as though they authoritatively agree with us. Thebigcheese thought that I had been presenting quotes from the General Authorities in a way that was hostile and self-righteous. TheBlackSheep and UnluckyStuntman readily agreed with thebigcheese.

In your second quote Marduk agrees with theBlackSheep’s criticism (attack) on me for being too combative, for attacking her personally in the past, for using harsh rhetoric, for making barely any concessions, for not listening to others, and for creating an environment where those who don’t believe as I do feel intimated, as I use the quotes of the General Authorities to support my point of view.

Then you come along and validate the attacks on me. “I really don't see the church coming out and saying "this is exactly what is meant by AoF #x..."(so, Vorpal, what’s with it when you quote the General Authorities?) “With no concrete theology to appeal to…. Rare is the 'correct' answer to a theological question authoritatively set forth. …But the kicker is, in my eyes: Neither side is wrong. People turn to the Apostles as archetypes to find support for their beliefs, but even they have differing personal views on such topics and their publications are almost universally prefaced with "herein are my individual thoughts and they in no way are meant to represent official doctrine of the church"…. but it seems to me that if you find yourself thinking "I am right and here is why" when dealing with a LDS topic, you may discover less support than you had previously thought.”

So, I understood this topic to be a continuation of why Vorpal is wrong to quote from the General Authorities as though they could contribute any authoritative understanding to the discussion. By the way, when I reason with a person I try to begin with what we believe in common, and since I assumed that most of us had a testimony of the Church I use quotes from the General Authorities. I have respect for those who don’t share those beliefs, and I’m more than happy to discuss things once we discover common ground.

The perplexing thing was why you, Tao, were attacking me and adding fuel to the fire. It didn’t seem like you.

[vorpal blade]

I agree that we can't answer all theological questions, but we can answer all the questions which make a difference to us.

I can think of plenty of theological questions which are important to me, but which don't currently have an answer.

What I meant was "I agree that we can't answer all theological questions, but we can answer all the questions which make a difference to our salvation."

To melbabi, when we write something we know what it means to us. Then someone comes along and points out that it could be interpreted differently. Perhaps we rephrase it in the hopes that those people will better understand us. Perhaps this has happened a time or two when the General Authorities have given a talk and then thought best to change the wording before it went into the permanent written record.

To the Unit of Energy, I'm not ignoring you; I just don't have a reply comment to make.

To Hypatia and UnluckyStuntman, too cute for me.

[Marduk]

Vorpal, none of what I said was intended as a personal attack on you. If you felt that it was, I apologize and can honestly say I wasn't even thinking of you when posting those things. It just in general confuses me when individuals take such a forceful stance on "X general authority said Y, so it means Z, and I don't understand how anyone can miss such an obvious point." Something that seems more reasonable, to me at least, is "X general authority said Y, which I think means Z. That's my understanding, at least."

[thebigcheese]

I feel like my quote is being extrapolated a little bit. This is what I said:

To argue that "this is the only way that x-issue should be interpreted" will generally come across as hostile, even self-righteous.

And I stand by that. If you are completely unwilling to concede that other people's opinions are valid, then you are being hostile. If you are completely unwilling to concede that other interpretations of doctrine might be valid, then you are being self-righteous. Granted, there are some circumstances where people try to invent interpretations for things that are doctrinally set in stone. In that case, I can understand the use of General Authority quotes to correct the misunderstanding. However, when it comes to the fuzzy points of church doctrine, I completely disagree with the notion that there is only one righteous interpretation. THAT is what I meant by that statement.

I also said that in one of my classes, the teacher called out a student for her untactful use of quotes. I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't use General Authority quotes at all -- rather, we should be tactful and considerate of our audience. At this point, I think it's pretty obvious that we have a mixed group here. Some of us are staunch believers in the church, some of us are lukewarm about the church, some of us have left the church, and some of us have never been members. And maybe some of us are generally staunch believers, but we struggle to support a few specific doctrines or principles. So, with that in mind, feel free to use your quotes. Just be mindful of the fact that not everyone will take them as authoritative, and not everyone will interpret them the same way.

And now I feel like I've sufficiently explained myself. I don't take issue with General Authority quotes, so don't try to pin that on me. Just be tactful when you use them. Vorpal, I think some people feel like you're calling them to repentance when you throw quote after quote at them. And that's offensive, unless you're their bishop or something.

[Unit of Energy]

there are multiple interpretations to most things. And this how it should be. What I need to get out of some verse/quote/lesson will be quite different than what you need to get.