Theory of Mormon Theology
Posted by jettboy on February 2nd, 2007
There was a discussion about the value of theology that questioned why Latter-day Saints have such a hard time accepting the study of theology. It got me thinking of my own interest in the subject. Surely Mormons dabble in the study of theology more than credit has been given. They just don’t know it. Discussing the personal opinions about the Last Days and what the Afterlife will be like can generate a lot of theological debate. The confusing might be on how casual it all can sound. There is a disjointedness that is hard to say creates a formal approach to doctrinal exigesis.
Mormons probably don’t like (systematic) theology because of the attitudes of the early leaders, particularly Joseph Smith. Theology is often interpreted as dogma, and “dogma†is considered even worse than theology because of the inherent rejection of new revelation. The word “doctrine†is far more accepted a term because it isn’t seen as related to a closed set of rules and beliefs. Thus, why Bruce R. McConkie’s book was named “Mormon Doctrine†rather than “Mormon Theology†when published.
So, Mormons do have theology, but it is open to various interpretations and added revelation. Because of that, the word doctrine is the more accepted term. It represents a set of teachings that can be independent and changed according to prophetic and personal insights. Theology is too closed and grounded in what is considered an age of Apostasy and False Creeds.
In response to the above, Lynnette stated:
Jettboy, that’s a good point that Joseph Smith had quite a bit of contempt for what he referred to as “dogma,†and I don’t doubt that his outlook has continued to influence the church. However, I’m not sure that theology as such has always had the bad reputation that it currently does–I can think of a number of people in the first century of the church’s existence who seem to have understood themselves as engaging in theological work: Parley P. Pratt, John A. Widtsoe, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage. I don’t know the history well enough to know when and why that changed.
I suppose it is correct in the interpretation of what they did as theology. However, I think most of their work was less theological than explanations of doctrine. The exception would probably be Parley P. Pratt and B.H.Roberts whose major works and ideas were highly controversial during their own lives. In other words, they were exceptions rather than the rule when they wrote. If they are included, then Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie should also be recognized as theologians as they tried to explain Mormonism.
Perhaps it is a semantics problem. Who isn’t enganged in doctrinal topics who aren’t also engaging in theology? Are the two interchangeable or completely different? What is theology as opposed to doctrine?
If it is true, as the above post article almost more than implies, that “Theological reflection is dependent on these [traditional outside] sources,†no wonder most Mormons reject it. They already believe those sources are what they are trying to get away from and should be rejected. At best they can be used to follow the path of Apostasy and not for any insight into God’s words. Even early LDS theologians often spoke negatively of the teachings of the Christian traditionalists. Assuming Mormon theology can only exist as engaged in traditional Christian thought, then the message of the First Vision and other revelations has declared formal theology blasphemy.
However, I think it is unnecessary to have to accept the above proposition in order to find Mormon theology valuable. For me, it seems such an attitude of theological distancing has created a serious confusion as to doctrinal teachings as understood by those not of the faith. Non-members too often take as a given things that are not set as absolutes. When they discover this by discussing Mormonism with those of various viewpoints within the faith, they consider it contradictions rather than fluidity of doctrinal discourse. Even Orthodox Mormons understand this doctrinal flexibility, but they don’t know how to articulate the theological implications because they usually only know how to talk in absolutes. This is not about opening up to divergent ideas (that I am opposed to), but rather ability to effectively and correctly communicate nuances. My interest in Mormon theology is that it is very complicated, and cannot be understood (as Joseph Smith said) without serious contemplation.
I think you bring up some interesting thoughts here. The first things that popped into my mind were that many Mormons think that everything is already sorted out. Many iron rod types believe that there is a lot more specific answers given than there really are.
I also think that there are many of us who are not really educated enough in terms of philosophy and theology. I think the rank-and-file Mormon has some very powerful theological ideas at their disposal, but may not be prepared to express them with philosophical jargon. I put myself in this category. I get lost in these discussions very quickly, and most of it is due to jargon that I am not familiar with.
I also, also think that when we don’t have an answer that we as a group are reluctant to reason and speculate about the posibilities. ‘We must wait for further revelation’ may be the stand many take. That wind blows where it listeth.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on February 3rd, 2007
Good post,
I find it interesting that most of the time we sit and wait on the sidelines waiting for the Brethren to tell us what to believe in and how to believe rather than studying out principles on our own and coming up with in our own words the gospel that we adhere to. We ourselves have within us the same power to learn the mysteries of heaven and then explain them as the prophet or anyone else has. We should all be active theologins and actively discuss the differing doctrines with open and intelligent minds. We should not be afraid to bring up ideas that might seem contrary to what another thinks, even if that person is high in the ranks of the church. I am not saying that we should overpower them, I am jusy saying that we have a mind of our own an can figure out the mysteries on our own.
Comment # 2 left by Rob Osborn on February 3rd, 2007
“We should all be active theologins and actively discuss the differing doctrines with open and intelligent minds.”
Before we can do that, I think we first need to know what doctrinal teachings are available for discussion. That takes a more serious effort to study the Scriptures and teachings of the Prophets before going off on subjects that are not fully thought out. Just because an idea is out there doesn’t mean it is supportable or worthy of debate. My reasoning in the post is that engaging in theology is first about recognizing the complexities inherent in the doctrines (and not about finding the next Big Mystery).
What attracts me to Mormonism is partly what the more evangelical (both in and out of the LDS Church) find disturbing. What they call “moving targets” and “contradictions,” I call complexity of doctrinal possibilities. What that means in a practical sense is that Mormon theology is an individual-reasoned product. Although there are theological ideas that are much better and sustainable than others, yet very little is set aside as absolute dogmatics. It is that excitement of finding connections and possibilities that weren’t seen before that makes, for me, Mormonism a living religion.
“We should not be afraid to bring up ideas that might seem contrary to what another thinks, even if that person is high in the ranks of the church.”
I think this is wrong and related to what I meant by not opening up divergent ideas. Such a stance seems contrary to the very central doctrine of Priesthood Authority and Prophetic Councel. Having a mind to discover mysteries on our own is absolutely essential. The problem is that doctrines that make up Mormon theology include teachings from those who are “higher up” in the Church, particularly those with Church-wide authority and responsibility. True, they often have their own theological constructs; but, you can’t ignore them simply because you think you know better. The whole idea of Mormon theology (vs. traditional or systematic) is that no one can be completely correct. Of course, that is where the necessity of Revelation, both authoritative and personal, comes into play.
And this is where I would like to quote one more thing from my original statements at the value of theology discussion:
In other words, too much of theological exploration is based more on Political discourse than Spiritual insights; although you can’t always divorce the two. That is why you probably read far more about feminism, morality of war, and Socialism vs. Capitalism then you do the operations of the Spirit or functions of the Priesthood in Salvation. Even discussions about faith in Jesus Christ as a Savior of the World is put in the background. Too many think those are simple and “Sunday School” when they are the star to theological understanding.
Comment # 3 left by Jettboy on February 3rd, 2007
True, they often have their own theological constructs; but, you can’t ignore them simply because you think you know better.
I think, also, that even if someone at the individual level might learn something true that is not commonly taught, that this should be kept private. Surely the Spirit can teach us all things if we are truly in tune, but that doesn’t give authorization to preach what hasn’t be taught generally (a la Alma 12:9). Personal revelation is just that — personal.
In other words, too much of theological exploration is based more on Political discourse than Spiritual insights….Too many think those are simple and “Sunday School†when they are the star to theological understanding.
This is a good point, and sometimes an unfortunate truth. I wonder sometimes if such a focus doesn’t cause us to miss the mark a bit and rob ourselves of some significant spiritual discovery.
Comment # 4 left by Michelle on February 3rd, 2007
Jettboy, this is a very interesting post. I think you made an important point when you said,”So, Mormons do have theology, but it is open to various interpretations and added revelation.”
I’m in my seventh decade, and I remember well several ideas that were taught by SS teachers, BYU religion professors, etc. in years past, that I thought at the time were settled doctrine. They have since been shown to be personal opinions, rather than absolute truths. Once I realized that, I had no problem with different interpretations of statements by former prophets or even passages of scripture.
I guess it’s natural for us to want final answers to deep questions. But we probably won’t get all those answers in mortal life. A couple of years ago I heard an apostle answer a question about doctrine to which I was absolutely certain I knew the answer. Imagine my surprise when the apostle replied, “We don’t know.” I quickly revised my view of the matter, and that experience truly helped me to be way less dogmatic in my thinking.
Although particular individuals may know a lot more than is being preached from the pupit (and, properly, keeping that knowledge to themselves), there are still a lot of open questions for most of us. That is probably a necessary part of our learning to walk by faith. It also gives us a lot of things to speculate about in the Bloggernacle. LOL!
Comment # 5 left by RoAnn on February 3rd, 2007
I tend to wonder if the concept of keeping personal revelation and experiences to ourselves, is overdone. I think we need to ask why should certain things be kept private? Those things that will cause others to stumble should obviously be kept secret. And if we present experiences to show-off, then they are best left unsaid.
But if we obtain information that can be of service to others to know, and shouldn’t cause damage in the wrong hands, then I see no problem in sharing ideas or experiences.
Comment # 6 left by Doug Towers on February 4th, 2007
Jettboy,
Maybe you did not understand my intent. What I was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong in exploring the great doctrinal mysteries even when the answers we come up with do not always coincide with the opinions of others including high ranking members in the church. I do not feel obligated to keep hush with an idea that seems contrary to what a past or living prophet says. We are all entitled to our opinions. Many times, the brethren speak from a “general” standpoint without giving much detail, but that does not mean that we should just assume what they always tell us is an absolute truth.
Suppose an apostle says something that you feel is contrary to your idea. Does this mean that you re-evaluate your own idea, or does it just mean that that chapter needs to be opened up again to review all angles and then let the spirit testify the truth to you? We all say we love to hear a prophet speak and do not realize that every Sunday in thousands of chapels dotting the globe, we hear prophets speak with the tongue of angels and that mostly our hearing is too weak to realize that the person speaking is really no different than someone from the first presidency.
There are no rules in place to know what “doctrinal teachings are available for discussion”. What we come up with we come up on our own mostly. We usually stumble accross passages or incidents in our life that cause the driving force for us to find that mystery. When we finally figure it out it’s like- WOW, so that is what that meant. We then usually find the proper time and place to discuss and thorize about it that is conducive to the spirit. This is the area where the Holy Ghost really shines- once you have a true “passion” about a mystery- the HG will reveal it to you- even if it may NOT BE what a general authority or the Prophet has said on the subject in the past.
Comment # 7 left by Rob Osborn on February 4th, 2007
What I was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong in exploring the great doctrinal mysteries even when the answers we come up with do not always coincide with the opinions of others including high ranking members in the church.
Ah, but the problem arises when the results of your personal explorations take the form of “this is the way it is” instead of “this is my personal opinion and nothing more”. Of course there is nothing wrong with seeking “greater understanding”—indeed, we are commanded to do so. However, anything learned that may be in addition to or beyond revealed gospel doctrine is nothing more than your opinion. One should never state it as anything but.
Comment # 8 left by Connor on February 4th, 2007
I would add something, but Connor seems to have said what I was thinking. To be honest, the whole “Suppose an apostle says something that you feel is contrary to your idea” hasn’t come up for me. This is mostly because they haven’t really talked doctrine or theology beyond the basics since who knows when; and I agree with the basics.
As for those apostles and prophets who have said things I disagree with? Again, it doesn’t bother me. They said what they did and usually there is another apostle or prophet who agrees with my own theories. Often it is from what they said that helps me come to the conclusions I have. From what I can tell, none of them disagree on the basics of the faith. That is my starting point. If all the cards fall, I still have a Rock to stand on.
Besides, my main point is that ignoring the study of Mormon theology has made it hard to articulate what Latter-day Saints believe. Bringing in other traditional theological sources only muddies the water. We must become more willing to engage in the study of our own doctrines and try to make sense of them. That takes more then skimming the Scriptures or the latest Ensign articles to fill in study requirements. We must engage ourselves more readily in feasting, pondering, and living the Word of God.
Comment # 9 left by Jettboy on February 4th, 2007
How do we do this? It seems like the closest I see this in church is the “how do we apply this to our lives” question.
In my BYU married ward, there were plenty of people willing to delve more deeply into doctrine, but since then it’s been much more difficult.
I think most of the time people are too mentally lazy to do the work. Perhaps it’s that we’re so consumed with life or death matters that we can’t afford the luxury of discussing these things.
Lastly, for those who have the luxury, and the capacity, I think many lack the interest. I know I’m generalizing, but church meetings seems to be too superficial too be theological. I’d love for that to change.
Come to think of it, there seem to be openings for theological discussions built into our lessons. But those open-ended questions are often answered by someone who has “the one true” answer and the discussion is over. So, I guess it’s pride that gets in the way in those cases.
Comment # 10 left by jessawhy on February 4th, 2007
In addition to what Connor said, I think that just because we have a WOW doesn’t mean that we know exactly all angles about whatever topic we may have been studying.
that the person speaking is really no different than someone from the first presidency
On one hand, you are right in the sense that we all can learn all mysteries just as much as the called prophets can. But we have no authority to receive revelation for the Church or for other people outside of our stewardships. If we teach something that contradicts what our authorities teach, or teach something that they don’t teach, I think that is treading on dangerous ground. Part of having the Spirit, at least in my experience, is being fiercely loyal to what the prophets teach. Scripture is the source of truth, and they are the proclaimers of scripture — ancient and modern.
Doug, my thought is that there is more at risk than what you have listed. I think it’s also possible to lead someone to look beyond the mark, for example, or to share things for which someone may not prepared. The Spirit teaches at an individual level based on our readiness individually. Of course, there are things appropriate to share; we do that all the time in our church meetings and personal relationships. I think the only way to really know what we can and shouldnt’ share is through the Spirit. I think it’s worth being cautious, though as a general rule.
Comment # 11 left by Michelle on February 4th, 2007
We must become more willing to engage in the study of our own doctrines and try to make sense of them….
I know I’m generalizing, but church meetings seems to be too superficial too be theological. I’d love for that to change.
Actually, I really think that church isn’t the place for this kind of engaging. There simply isn’t enough time, and there is too much variation regarding where people are in the gospel and their knowledge and testimony of it. Keeping church meetings at the “simple” level allows for ALL to learn via the Spirit at the level at which they are ready. (We’ve all had the “was that scripture always there?” kind of experience that shows that there are layers and layers of meaning in the things we sometimes think we understand.) The real engaging of theology, IMO, needs to be at a personal level and directly with the scriptures, words of the prophets, and the temple so, again, the Spirit can teach as we are ready and desirous to learn.
Comment # 12 left by Michelle on February 4th, 2007
Michelle
As always, wise words. I have to agree with all you say, there. And I have made the mistake a couple of times of telling someone something that I thought they were ready for, only to find they weren’t. Sometimes our communication with the Spirit is a bit lax.
But I think in our studies of the Scriptures things will be revealed to us in areas where GAs may not have been looking. And these things can be helpful to others. They can go beyond where the GAs are speaking. If these things don’t contravene the points that you and I have outlined, I see no problem in expressing them as an opinion (as Connor points out). And if they are totally supported and taught in Scripture then they need not be expressed purely as your opinion, whether expressed by GAs or not.
Personally I speak for God in most of my statements, not the church. Speaking for the church comes second. That may seem a strange statement as it is God’s church. What I mean is that my main interest is to support a perfect God, not trying to defend imperfect organisations. God is perfectly defendable, with no flaws. And it is him that I would preach.
The only other thing that is a concern is that I’d consider it unwise to be too quick to assume GAs have got it wrong. Even if they have, it is generally unstabling to some people’s teatimonies (particularly new members) to be downing GAs on a regular basis. It really is necessary for a person to have some very good regular contact and discussion with the Spirit before venturing too far off the set track. So GD classes aren’t really the place for making such comments.
Comment # 13 left by Doug Towers on February 4th, 2007
Personally I speak for God in most of my statements…
By what authority? To whom? Under what stewardship? To what end?
Speaking for the church comes second.
You may only speak for the Church if you are the Prophet.
…my main interest is to support a perfect God, not trying to defend imperfect organisations.
Sorry, but the Church is not an imperfect organization. It is a perfect (true) and living (continuing revelation) organization. It may be comprised of imperfect individuals, but you are incorrect to say that the Church is imperfect.
Comment # 14 left by Connor on February 5th, 2007
p.s. to jessawhy…my comment probably came out like it was specifically and personally directed to you, but this is more a general thing I have been thinking about for months and really thinking about today. Just wanted to say that lest you feel I was jumping on your comment specifically…it was just a springboard for my thoughts. Sorry if it felt otherwise.
Comment # 15 left by Michelle on February 5th, 2007
Doug,
I agree that we shouldn’t be assuming that a leader is wrong. And even if he/she is, we probably shouldn’t be saying anything anyway. Consider this from Elder Oaks:
Elder Oaks’ whole talk is worth the read. One key point he makes is that we follow this order for our own sake, to keep the Spirit with us. If we think we know something that contradicts a leader, we should simply keep it to ourselves, for our benefit, and also for the benefit of others. (See what Elder Oaks has to say on that, too…too long to quote it all!)
Comment # 16 left by Michelle on February 5th, 2007
Ugh. That was a long quote…sorry.
Comment # 17 left by Michelle on February 5th, 2007
Michelle
I would have trouble sleeping if I had that book of quotes you have under your pillow. It must be huge.
But in all seriousness. He doesn’t exactly define what level of disagreement we have. I try to just avoid it. But it becomes difficult when in the middle of a priesthood lesson you say something that is very important and someone quotes some GA disagreeing with a side issue that makes the main one false if this GA is believed. It is terribly frustrating when in the midst of trying to teach the love of God (for example). An experience which happens to me from time to time. I just get that way that I bearly feel like talking. GD classes are even worse.
Connor
This that I have just stated is the type of thing I am speaking of.
Your barrage was a bit predictable, mate. You need to learn to search out to understand where people are coming from. I have the same problem at times. Women seem more skilled at it, generally speaking.
As to my authority to speak in behalf of God. My authority is the same as Lehi had. Please don’t insult yourself and try and tell me he was a prophet of God. He came from Manasseh, and had no authority whatsoever. The prophet had to be the direct descendant of Aaron, 1st son. Father to son, all the way. All priesthood authority was held in the tribe of Levi only - not Manasseh.
His authority was that God told him, and he knew it. As I know what God has told me.
All members speak in behalf of the church, every time some non-member asks about the church.
In regard D&C 1:30. Of course God was pleased with the church. Have you looked at the others?
Comment # 18 left by Doug Towers on February 5th, 2007
What happens when we speak according to our interpretation of the scriptures and it doesn’t necessarily ryme with what is accepted mormon doctrine? Is our interpretation wrong, or is everyone elses wrong? And, should we discuss these topics with others? For example-
The general doctrine of the church on the creation has man being formed from the dust of the earth on the sixth day. But according to scripture, man is actually formed on the seventh day, not the sixth! So should this topic be raised for discussion in class? And, if it can be determined with some distinction that the general doctrine on the subject is wrong, should we as members just keep hush hush, or should we continually bring it up with our superiors to get a change rattified?
Comment # 19 left by Rob Osborn on February 5th, 2007
You need to learn to search out to understand where people are coming from.
I’m not on a quest to empathize with everybody that comments. While such insight might shed additional light on the perspective one has, the internet provides little facilitation in that department given that we’re communicating virtually, and so I simply respond to what I’m able: your words.
As to my authority to speak in behalf of God. My authority is the same as Lehi had. Please don’t insult yourself and try and tell me he was a prophet of God. He came from Manasseh, and had no authority whatsoever. The prophet had to be the direct descendant of Aaron, 1st son. Father to son, all the way. All priesthood authority was held in the tribe of Levi only - not Manasseh.
Incorrect. Here’s a good read for you, which reads in part:
His authority was that God told him, and he knew it. As I know what God has told me.
And just as Lehi’s authority/stewardship was his own family, so it is with you and myself. Any authority you claim exists only for those within your stewardship. You do not speak on authority for the Church.
All members speak in behalf of the church, every time some non-member asks about the church.
This may be semantics, but I see this statement as incorrect. While you may teach somebody about the Church or explain it to them, you do so in an unofficial capacity. Only those that are official representatives duly charged and authorized can speak on behalf of the Church. This is why LDS-related websites and books will often feature a disclaimer saying that there is no affiliation w/ the Church and any statements or opinions expressed therein are those of the author alone.
Comment # 20 left by Connor on February 5th, 2007
What happens when we speak according to our interpretation of the scriptures and it doesn’t necessarily ryme with what is accepted mormon doctrine?
Are you serious? Need you even ask? All “accepted doctrine” is just that—doctrine. Any thoughts, opinions, or delusion you may have that come into conflict with that doctrine are unfounded and, barring any future revelation on the matter, wrong. Plain and simple. That’s like saying you’ve encountered a path other than the straight and narrow one. Is there any question but that you should remain on the “accepted” path?
Is our interpretation wrong…?
Ding ding ding!
The general doctrine of the church on the creation has man being formed from the dust of the earth on the sixth day. But according to scripture, man is actually formed on the seventh day, not the sixth!
Are you sure you’re reading the right scriptures…?
…should we continually bring it up with our superiors to get a change rattified?
One should not try to steady the ark. Look where that got Uzza.
Comment # 21 left by Connor on February 5th, 2007
Connor,
You bring up the very problem in our church. What we write in our manuals or other gospel orinted material published by the church is what is accepted in the general assembly to be what the “true doctrine” is. However, this does not mean that it truly is “the true doctrine” of Jesus Christ’s gospel. Just because an idea or notion is accepted to be the general rule by an apostle does not mean that it cannot be judged in fairness whether it is really true or not.
I also think it is highly offensive for us to just bring some type of authoritive gavel down on judging others opinions and ideas as “false or wrong doctrines” based solely on what he have heard on the subject second hand without looking into it for ourselves. For instance-
Have you actually worked out the issues with the creation and man’s actual placement on the earth enough to say with authority that I am wrong? Or is it that you just don’t know of all the separate issues and scriptures involved and are just relying off of what you have been taught on the subject second hand?
That is the whole issue at hand really. Do we teach what we truly know and have diligently studied, or do we just teach what others have said on the subject without truly knowing for ourselves?
If I showed a class a scripture where man was formed on the seventh day, what would cause them to say I was wrong, or, what would cause them to believe? That truly is the heart of the issue. What do we hold within our train of thought that says something of a doctrinal issue is right or something is wrong? It seems like in our church that that decision relies heavily on what past prophets have said coupled with commentary work like “Mormon Doctrine” or “True to the Faith”. Can we not decide for ourselves on issues which are already in the scriptures?
Comment # 22 left by Rob Osborn on February 5th, 2007
Can we not decide for ourselves on issues which are already in the scriptures?
Of course you can. You just shouldn’t teach what isn’t consistent with accepted, correlated stuff. That’s a pattern we are asked to follow, and my experience has been that it keeps us safe and keeps the Spirit flowing. Your experience may be different, but you are not authorized to create a new pattern to fit your style.
Comment # 23 left by Michelle on February 5th, 2007
Have you actually worked out the issues with the creation and man’s actual placement on the earth enough to say with authority that I am wrong?
This topic isn’t about specifics, but if you’d like to threadjack the post into a discussion about which day man was created on, please provide a scripture to support your stance that man was created on the seventh day. Suffice it to say that I’ve been to the temple and disagree with you. Not sure where you’re getting that idea.
Your entire problem seems to boil down to authority. You feel that authorized correlation committees, apostles, and by corollary the Prophet, do not have the authority to tell you what is true doctrine. Believe what you wish, but don’t accuse faithful Latter-day Saints of not investigating things fully simply because they study within the revealed bounds of true doctrine, instead of wandering off into other paths…
Comment # 24 left by Connor on February 5th, 2007
Rob
I’m not sure going into the concept of God creating man on the sabbath is a good issue to raise here. If they come to accept it then it opens a can of worms, that plainly some here couldn’t handle, in my opinion. If you feel inspired to raise it, I’ll support you, but otherwise, leave it. You’ve put the existence of the idea in their heads, let the Spirit work from there, is my advice.
Connor
It is plain that Lehi had to get some authority at some stage. Obviously there were few disputes about original authority among the Nephites, and so no one thought to mention how they got it. The idea that Lehi himself had the Melchizedek priesthood is an interestsing theory. Naturally it is a possibility that crossed my mind. Either way, how does that make him different to me? Unless your proposing that they had the presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood in the Americas at the time of Christ. I’d doubt that one. So that brings us back to the question of what difference would there be between his authority to speak in God’s behalf as to mine. And I was trying to keep it simple. How would you account for Abraham, who spoke in God’s behalf, while the great high priest Melchizedek was present?
“This may be semantics, but I see this statement as incorrect.”
I think you know that I wasn’t proposing to make a statement the whole church has to accept as doctrine.
And as to my stewardship - “am I my brother’s keeper”? The anwser is a resounding, “YES”.
Comment # 25 left by Doug Towers on February 5th, 2007
Michelle, Connor,
The point I am trying to raise is that everything that the church puts out should not be viewed as “set in stone” doctrine. If this were the case- Blacks should of never received the priesthood, we would all have to enter plural marriage to be saved, Joseph Smith would have to be our saving God at the pearly gates, the Catholic church is the church of the devil….etc, etc…
As far as my analogy about bringing up man’s physical creation and how it relates to this thread- I have a much different interpretation of the creation account and the order of placement. I can show where my ideas have good merit based upon scriptural support, whereas the general view from the church is quite vague and cannot explain away the points I bring up in the scriptures. As to not threadjack this post I will be posting late tonight on my own blog on this very issue at “Rock of Salvation”
Comment # 26 left by Rob Osborn on February 5th, 2007
A quick glance at the scriptures reveals:
D&C 42:11
As many of you know I like to speculate some and experiment on the word. If I were to receive some personal revelation on some subject I would expect to be able to express it in terms of previous revelation and have the idea be consistent with everything else, without even mentioning any personal revelation. Unless I was specifically told to publish the revelation as a revelation I would not expect to do so specifically.
I find it odd for someone to think that they have truly uncovered something completely new that none of the prophets, apostles or scholars of the church have ever thought of before. And that out of all of the great leaders of the church, you were chosen to have something completely unique revealed to. Perhaps this is a lack of faith on my part….
Comment # 27 left by Eric Nielson on February 5th, 2007
Perhaps this is a lack of faith on my part…
No, it’s not. You are correct (I believe, anyways) in what you’ve said here, Eric.
Comment # 28 left by Connor on February 5th, 2007
Eric Neilson
D&C 42:11 appears to me to be a temporary statement according to verse 15. And, if not, I can’t see how it would be consistent with the fact that many translated beings are out preaching the gospel, taken as an absolute. I would have trouble believing that Joseph Smith was aware of every such person. I would see this verse as direction to those present, and a general statement stopping people from just starting up their own missionary programs.
It also wouldn’t be consistent with David O. McKay’s direction that every member should be a missionary.
“I find it odd for someone to think that they have truly uncovered something completely new that none of the prophets, apostles or scholars of the church have ever thought of before.”
I don’t know that it is necessarily that extreme. The one great advantage that we have above GAs is just that. We can express an opinion, and it is just that. If they express an opinion it becomes open for public ridicule as established church doctrine.
I think you are missing out on a lot by putting up barriers. Of course we are all going to have some wacky ideas. But maybe some of those wacky ideas are true. Discussion gives us the chance to think outside of the square. And it may give the Spirit a place to begin teaching us something that we just weren’t hearing before.
Comment # 29 left by Doug Towers on February 5th, 2007
Discussion gives us the chance to think outside of the square. And it may give the Spirit a place to begin teaching us something that we just weren’t hearing before.
OK, so here’s the million dollar question for me: whose job is it to teach us things that we weren’t hearing before? I agree that sometimes someone can plant a seed or bring up a concept that could start a new perspective on things. I think that has happened for me before. But ultimately, I think any of us is going to be walking a risky line if we put ourselves in a place where we think it’s our place to teach others or bring things to light. I really don’t think that is what we are supposed to be about with each other. I think if someone wants to learn more, it’s their personal responsibility to go to the scriptures, the words of the prophets, the temple and prayer to let the Spirit do His wonderful work of teaching. This is something that worries me about the bloggernacle, actually. And the more I think about it, the more I want to follow the pattern Eric described…making sure that whatever I might share could be backed up by prophetic and scriptural support. That’s my personal take on this, and the yardstick I try to use when sharing something — unless I make it very, very clear that I’m sharing opinion. What I don’t like about “wacky” ideas is that they are rarely shared in a spirit of “take it or leave it” — they are usually shared in a “I’m right and if you were in tune you would see that” kind of attitude. That strikes me as inappropriate. I’m open to people’s ideas and opinions as long as they are expressly presented as such. Anything even appearing to want to be “right” or “inspired” when it comes out of left field and gels with nothing familiar or inspires no light bulb ends up falling too easily into the “wacky and/or yucky” category, for me anyway.
Comment # 30 left by Michelle on February 5th, 2007
Michelle
I understand where you are coming from. And the point is that I agree with you totally. Which may sound contradictory to what I was saying. But in the way you mean it (where your focus is) I support your point. But in the way I mean it I believe there is benefit to it.
Any good idea can equally become a bad idea if twisted sufficiently. And some can get so lost in doctrinal fantasies that they miss the whole point of doctrine. Eventually deciding the prophet to be so far off that he isn’t worth listening to. I fully support wise doctrinal investigation, and listening to the Spirit. It is also important that doctrine must maintain the human aspect, of being accurate in life as well as books (Scripture).
But on the other hand there are doctrines that aren’t known to GAs. I’m not professing to know any necessarily, but obviously they exist. Then there are some things that we can say that the Spirit has revealed to us. If someone doesn’t accept them, reasonable discussion is logical.
If I believe something to be true, I may even throw it out for debate. We can analyse an idea, find it seems to fit, and then see what others can find as objections. Naturally I would defend the point to see if it can stand up to scrutiny. I think this is a good forum for such examination. And I can’t see why all can’t benefit from open examination. I have been doing doctrinal examinations that go beyond where the GAs speak for decades. And my testimony of the truthfulness of the church and that the prophet is God appointed only grows, not diminishes.
Comment # 31 left by Doug Towers on February 6th, 2007
“I would have trouble sleeping if I had that book of quotes you have under your pillow. It must be huge.”
The crazy thing is that there’s NO book. She’s like that in person. I’ll be just talking about whatever from my life and she’ll seriously bust out –on the fly– with something like “Oooooh, that’s just like what Elder Bednar said in Conference last April, when he said “…” It’s the most amazing gift I’ve ever seen. When it comes to conference talks, she just remembers them *all,* by topic, by speak, etc. me, I’m lucky if I can name a GA from his picture beyond the First Presidency. Michelle can tell you who usually talks about what and what his speaking style is like, and what he sai dthe last time he spoke, and on and on.
Really, it is amazing.
I’ll bet she looks them up on lds.org to copy over here, but there’s no randomly using the search function or anything like that–she just *knows*. I know we all have our own gifts, and I love mine, but hers is *really* cool.
Comment # 32 left by Naiah Earhart on February 7th, 2007
Naiah
Thanks for breaking the silence, and revealing the secret. I had given hints enough, I thought. So modesty is why I got no response. That is some memory. To remember them that well you would have to do a good job of likening them to yourself, in my opinion. And really examining them to get all you can from them. Michelle also has the Spirit with her. I feel it in her words.
And what is your gift Naiah?
Comment # 33 left by Doug Towers on February 7th, 2007
Doug, sorry for the silence. I love the words of our prophets. And the Lord helps me remember (many of) them. And technology helps me find them.
All gifts from the Lord, no?
Comment # 34 left by Michelle on February 8th, 2007
Michelle
You don’t need to apologise. I was actually having fun joking about it. But that is brilliant. And it truly would be the Spirit that would bring them to your rememberance. Many ask me how I can remember the Scriptures so well. And I always tell them that it isn’t me. I know what I am like without the Spirit. But with the Spirit the information is just there. Nevertheless you would need to have a great devotion to the concepts in these talks to have them so easily available. And to the Scriptures. So it is a credit to you.
Comment # 35 left by Doug Towers on February 8th, 2007