Page 2 of 2
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:00 pm
by Whistler
There are paradoxes in our religion; their existence makes doctrines difficult to interpret. Examples available upon request.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:19 pm
by Waldorf and Sauron
Tangentially related, but I think helpful and interesting, are some thoughts in an article by Orson Scott Card titled "
Be Careful Claiming Inspiration."
I think of inspiration as coming into our minds along with all our other ideas, and indistinguishable from them. We follow the ideas the Spirit brings us, not out of obedience, but because we desire the path itself. Our choices then reveal who we are, and we are fully responsible for the life we chose to live.[...]
Our own minds also do a pretty good job of filling our heads with ideas that do not come from God.
And that's a good thing. The Lord does not want us to wait to be commanded in all things (Doctrine and Covenants 58:26), though we should consult with him in everything (Doctrine and Covenants 46:7).[...]
Inspiration comes into minds that are already filled with a mixture of true and false ideas. Even if we feel that we have received confirmation of a course of action we propose to the Lord, that does not imply that all the ideas we might have attached to that proposal are true doctrine!
That's sort of how I feel about conference talks. Are they inspired? Sure. But they are not usually pure, they are not usually revelation. They are good, and godly, and doctrin
al, and uplifting. They represent the best efforts of good, knowledgable men and women to teach revealed principles of the gospel. But in the process of writing and speaking, lots of other ideas of the individual authors are attached. And in rare cases when those ideas are not supportable by canonical scripture, none of us are bound to accept such quotes as scripture.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:29 pm
by Craig Jessop
You should all read People of Paradox by Terryl Givens. He talks a lot about the paradoxes of Mormonism.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:31 pm
by vorpal blade
Whistler wrote:There are paradoxes in our religion; their existence makes doctrines difficult to interpret. Examples available upon request.
I'm interested, Whistler, but I wonder if we have hijacked Tao's thread. Or is this his idea?
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:37 pm
by Whistler
Hmm... it's what I estimate his idea is, but if he's around he should say what he means.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:22 pm
by Tao
vorpal blade wrote: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?
Aye, that's where I was headed. And a good summation of why I was so confused at the route you seemed to be taking.
vorpal blade wrote:Whistler wrote:There are paradoxes in our religion; their existence makes doctrines difficult to interpret. Examples available upon request.
I'm interested, Whistler, but I wonder if we have hijacked Tao's thread. Or is this his idea?
Heh, I practice what I preach; this thread is no more 'mine' than anyone elses. I think I know where Whistler is headed, feel free to explore what she has to say.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:45 pm
by Marduk
Not that I mind where this thread has gone, I'd just like to correct a few mistaken notions that some seem to have here.
Specifically, a "dogma" is a statement that is taken as true simply on the basis of the purported divine authority of the one who says it. This is a seperate, although related issue to a clear, cohesive, and consistent theology, which may or may not be dogmatic. A paradoxical statement can simultaneously be both paradoxical and dogmatic, but cannot contribute to a clearly delineated theology, for example.
Re: Mormon Theology
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:15 am
by Tao
mmm, so you're using it more in the political sense? That would make your earlier statements easier to reconcile. Relegiously, dogma doesn't necessarily carry the connection with lack of evidence that it does when used politically. In such a topic, it can be substituted for creed or tenet with very little denotative alteration as can be seen in
this definition:
Noun dogma (plural dogmas or dogmata)A doctrine (or set of doctrines) relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth authoritatively by a religious organization or leader. from L.
dogma "philosophical tenet"
Thus, if your faith has a theology set forth authoritatively, it is by nature dogmatic.