Blogger of Jared

29 Responses to “Why History and Doctrine and Theology don’t Matter.”

1. It depends on what you mean by matter. Is it necessary to know those things in order to get into the Celestial kingdom? Probably not, depending on which things you mean. Are they helpful in learning how to learn the things necessary to get you into the Celestial kingdom? Yes.

2. Yes, but what else would you expect from a religion with continuing revelation

3. The relationship between the two is fluid. Values tend to lead us to emphasize certain aspects of history, which can become a whole new history in its own right. That said, people searching for values often turn to history and the thoughts of the ancients in order to find out what they should believe in. In both cases, I would argue that the old and the new are melded together.

Comment # 1 left by HP on March 12th, 2007

1) If put to a yes or no I would have to say no. What do we base our values on? The teachings are the values and vice versa. I do not know that you can really separate the two.

2) I would say that most of the core values have not changed, have never changed, nor can change. I would suppose that some minor values have changed, or perhaps more likely our understandings of those values have changed.

3) Again, I don’t think we can fully separate teachings and values. In some ways I think history is a tangent, and perhaps best serves as an example of our teachings and values.

Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on March 12th, 2007

As a missionary in Tennessee, I was constantly presented with this same argument. Salvation meant accepting Jesus as your personal Savior and living a good life. Restoration was irrelevant, priesthood was irrelevant, ordinances were irrelevant, and doctrines were a matter of personal interpretation. I heard the “many paths up the mountain, but all reach the top” reasoning for all of the differences in accepted (i.e. mainstream protestantism) churches. Motives and intent were all important (”just a good ol’ boy, never meanin’ no harm”).

Didn’t buy it then…don’t buy it now. Your phrase “God isn’t interested in” is of particular note. I suppose He pretty much has to speak for Himself on what He’s interested in. You’re probably on safe ground about the history, possibly ok on most theology, but I think he is definitely interested in the “Doctrine and Covenants.”

Comment # 3 left by larryco_ on March 12th, 2007

Hp, we are singing off the same sheet of paper, I would guess.

In regards to what I mean by “Matter”, you are pretty on track, though we could quibble about what is meant by “get into the Celestial Kingdom”. I also meant what matters in that these things are what I really want my daughter to get out of her religion and what I think really makes a difference in who we are and what we do.

Comment # 4 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

Eric:

[Can we number these comments? It's a Major Weakness of BOJ]
1. There are definitely teachings(doctrine) which do not lead to values. For example, I would say 80% of the topics discussed at NCT or FPR do not connect with the LDS values. I would say that whether we were always spirits or we were intelligences then spirts doesn’t effect our values. This goes even further for History, I would say that whether BY or JS had one wife or twenty, it does not affect our values. In the sense of what ought to be, I can agree with you though, our teachings ought to be focused on our values.
2. I can agree with this.
3. I see History as a Case Study of our values applied or misapplied.

Comment # 5 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

1. Do you Agree or Disagree?

I agree, with the stipulation that such things (history, doctrine, theology) are there specifically to teach and reinforce values. Would we have values without these three things?

2. Have the Values of our religion changed?

I agree w/ Eric.

3. Do Values create Teachings and History, or does History and Teachings create values?

I wouldn’t say that they necessarily create values, but they do teach them to us. Would Father Adam have been able to pass on his knowledge without teaching? How would our children learn divine values without the supporting teachings and understanding of the plan of salvation?

Comment # 6 left by Connor on March 12th, 2007

Hey larryco_

I served in Tennessee from 89-91. When were you there?

Comment # 7 left by Geoff J on March 12th, 2007

Larryco:
Since you might enjoy it, I once heard B.R. McConkie quoted as saying the scriptures, even the D&C, were not written for us. We can read them and gain inspiration for us, but they were not written for us. I have no reference, sadly, but there you have it.

Anyway, the Teachings in the Doctrine and Covenants are worthless if we follow them and they do not instill in us the beliefs, motives, virtues and ideals that will make us able to accept Christ’s Grace.

And according to the Temple, there are many paths to salvation, they all just have to have certain events along the path.

I will happily embrace my baptist, buddhist, or otherwise brother who has the same values I have., both now and in the Celestial Kingdom. (If I make it.)

Comment # 8 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

Connor (and all, for that matter)

Yes, we must teach, but what must we teach? When we teach that Heaven has three degrees of Glory, what values are we teaching? Sometimes, we have a tendancy to stop at what the rules and facts are, but fail to go on to wy the rules and facts matter.

I think this is in part because we think or hope that why things matter is self-evident.

Comment # 9 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

Geoff J: I’m an old guy who served in the 70’s when it was still the Kentucky-Tennessee Mission.

Matt: I didn’t really mean just the book D&C, that was just my semi-witty attempt to say that I feel that doctrine and covenants (administered by priesthood authority from God) count.

Basically, I feel that we all must attain Christ-like attributes as outlined in Matthew 5-7 if we are to gain exaltation. I believe that doctrines received both anciently and modern play a significent role in knowing what our Father in Heaven wants of me.

Comment # 10 left by larryco_ on March 12th, 2007

Larryco:
It’s interesting, because when I read Matthew 5-7, I see it as Christ teaching Internalism vs. Externalism (Who we are vs. What we do) and I would say that those Christ-like attributes you are speaking of are all related to values.

Of course covenants count, else there’d be no work for the dead. But if our values are correct, will not the rest sort itself out eventually?

Comment # 11 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

Matt,

Any sentence that starts out with “God is interested in…” or “God doesn’t care about…” are examples of doctrine. In your example sentences above, they seem to be squarely situated in the field of soteriology. So, if theology doesn’t matter, then this post doesn’t matter. Your argument is self-defeating.

Now, likely, you have in mind the idea that some teachings (like what it is that God really cares about) are important, but that a bunch of other ideas are not important (like whether or not there is a difference between spirits and intelligences or whether Joseph had one wife or many). Upon what basis can you determine which is which? How do I tell that something is important or not?

If someone is going to leave the Church because of something they heard about Joseph’s wives, does it them become important that we know something about the history?

Also, as larryco_ seems to be saying, how can you tell that God doesn’t care about theology and doctrine? He seemed to be interested in teaching Joseph Smith about a lot of things on your “don’t care” list. How do you explain that?

Comment # 12 left by Jacob on March 12th, 2007

Jacob:

This post, in so far as it doesn’t instill in me any greater capacity to have the correct values, doesn’t matter. In the sense that this post leads people to value values, it does matter.

My point is that teachings are only important in so far as they instill in us values. It does not matter what is being taught. A man can teach his son how to clean the toilet and he is instilling values. What I think does matter is that we look for the values in what we are teaching and teach that. Those values may be truth, honesty, and integrity, and thus we talk about Joseph Smith and his wives, etc.

I am not saying we should not know anything about our history, our teachings, or our doctrines. I am saying, we need to keep it all in proper perspective.

regarding Joseph and God, I would say that much of what we can truly call doctrinal teachings points to the superiority of values over teachings. Once again, I will repeat, values trump teaching in value everytime.

Finally, thank you Jacob, for pointing out that my rhetoric may have gone to far. It is indeed a good reason to be warry, when a man goes about proclaiming what God does and does not care about.

Comment # 13 left by Matt W. on March 12th, 2007

He is interested in who we are. He is interested in our motives, our intents, our virtues, our beliefs, and our ideals. As I catch all for the previous, God is interested in our values.

So the History of the Church is only useful in so far as it supports the values of the Church.

If this is the case, do we need the church? Can’t any religion (or spirituality for that matter) deliver value?

Comment # 14 left by SmallAxe on March 12th, 2007

I think I understand what you are saying, and I would agree. Enthusiastically! I think an awful lot of time and energy is spent worrying about things that really “don’t matter” to our purpose in life and the purpose of the gospel and church. Knowing about the Savior, the Savior’s characteristics, His authority and ordinances, and the way we can become more like Him is really what “matters.”

SmallAxe, my answer to your question would be that it’s not that nothing in the church matters. There is plenty that does (some of which I listed above.) But having all the questions about our history or theology answered isn’t necessary to get to where we need to be, and that is what I hear Matt saying. The key is to not look beyond the mark.

Comment # 15 left by Michelle on March 12th, 2007

I’m not commenting much in general these days, but Matt, I just had to say that this was just so true, so right on. At first reading, I was somewhat shocked and appalled, but you’re totally right. All the intellectual theological gymnastics and obscure chruch history trivia don’t mean anything in and of themselves. It is what we take in that shapes who we are, and how we live the gospel today, in the here and now, what brings us closer to the Lord, what makes us more Christlike in our very beings that matters.

Wow. You totally broke my brain. Thanks.

Comment # 16 left by Naiah Earhart on March 12th, 2007

But what of competing values? How should we choose.

To me this is becoming a chicken or the egg example. Doesn’t it? Can you really have ‘true’ values without ‘true’ doctrine?

If ye say there is no God, then you say there is no sin. And if there is no sin there is no righteousness….

Is not our doctrine about who we are, what the plan is, what manner of people we should be?

I’m having a hard time getting my mechanical brain to separate the two (doctrine and values).

Comment # 17 left by Eric Nielson on March 12th, 2007

JS taught that we are saved no faster than we gain knowledge. Elder Maxwell comments:

For example, our being saved by gaining knowledge obviously refers to a particular form of knowledge, a “knowledge of God” and the things of God. (; see also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 217.) Nephi lamented, as you know, over those who “will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge.” Thus, while we are saved no faster than we gain a certain type of knowledge, it is also the case that we will gain knowledge no faster than we are saved!
(Ensign , April 1993, Neal A. Maxwell)

However, gaining knowledge is only part of it. As GI Joe says, “knowing is half the battle.”

Comment # 18 left by BRoz on March 13th, 2007

I’m having a hard time getting my mechanical brain to separate the two (doctrine and values).

I don’t think you have to separate them. I think the whole point is that the doctrine that matters most is that which points us to what/who we should be striving to become, and how we can get there. Doctrine changes behavior, so it’s necessary. But history and metaphysical theology often doesn’t contain that which matters to help us in becoming. The gospel really is simple at its core. It’s full of layers of meaning and potential for learning, but learning is only valuable if it makes a difference in who we are. If what we learn and know brings us closer to becoming like Christ (to truly knowing Him — think matt 7:21-23, for example) then it has value. Otherwise, it could just be empty knowledge.

Comment # 19 left by Michelle on March 13th, 2007

I think an awful lot of time and energy is spent worrying about things that really “don’t matter” to our purpose in life and the purpose of the gospel and church. Knowing about the Savior, the Savior’s characteristics, His authority and ordinances, and the way we can become more like Him is really what “matters.”

Michelle,

I agree with your later comment that there should be a direct action-oriented connection with discussion. But it sounds to me like you are saying something rather different than this post started to say at the outset. You are not saying that history, theology, etc. do not matter, but only that certain kinds of history, doctrine, and theology matter. I think those are two very different claims. You notion about knowing about the Savior as the things that matter imply knowing quite a bit. His characteristics as “creator” of this world for instance imply that we should know how the Earth functions, how to take care of it, how to in some sense become a “creator” such as he has. No small task in my estimate.

In short I don’t think you actually prove what you think you do. You make yourself responsible for all kinds of knowledge. I think a more appropriate claim is that we should be prepared to relate the practical implications of our discussions to “action”, “value”, etc. and not claim that these things “do not matter”.

Comment # 20 left by SmallAxe on March 13th, 2007

Wo… Several comments have turned up missing. I am not sure what has caused this, but sorry for the trouble.

Small Axe, please recall even in the original post, I applied the caveat you are discussing.

So the History of the Church is only useful in so far as it supports the values of the Church.

The Teachings of the Church are only useful in so far as they teach the values of the Church.

The “Theology” of the Church, while some may argue it doesn’t exist, exists in the values of the Church.

My point is simply that we can give people in the church all the tools they need to do critical analysis of the scriptures, but this does not, however, make them better christians.

Now, if I recall correctly, Eric seemed to think that we were closing in on values and doctrine being a sort of chicken and egg phenomenon. (Egg came first, BTW) Eric, Values came first. We know this by simply seeing that a value can not be taught if it does not exist.

Comment # 21 left by Matt W. on March 13th, 2007

Matt,

Thanks for rescuing the post. I think my original question then still applies–are values not independant of the church? If not, then what is the relationship between the two?

Comment # 22 left by SmallAxe on March 13th, 2007

But it sounds to me like you are saying something rather different than this post started to say at the outset.

Actually, I don’t see them as so different. In the original post, Matt says that the parts of history and doctrine and theology that matter are those that underscore the values that we are supposed to obtain. I completely agree that none of the process of becoming can be done in a vacuum without appropriate knowledge.

Comment # 23 left by Michelle on March 13th, 2007

SmallAxe, I would say some values can be there independent of the Church, but the chances of them all being there in the right balance are less likely.

The only trick ace I have up my sleeve is that I lumped beliefs in with motives and ideals to define values, which allows me to narrow to the perspective of the church, if need be.

However, let me just say that post finals week, I intend to explore this idea of values and our religion further.

Comment # 24 left by Matt W. on March 13th, 2007

History, theology, doctrine are all important as they represent one path to knowledge. What is more important is that we never become dogmatic and contend with anger over any of these as they are by nature an imperfect knowledge and subject to change.

Comment # 25 left by Doc on March 14th, 2007

What is more important is that we never become dogmatic and contend with anger over any of these

I think also something important is not to “seek for things [we cannot] understand” thus looking “beyond the mark” (Christ). (a la Jacob 4)

Comment # 26 left by Michelle on March 14th, 2007

Michelle:

One Quibble I might give is that Is the question “How can we know what we can understand if we do not seek?” Another quible would be that we are commanded to Ask, Seek and Knock, with valuable responses to each.

However, I believe what you are trying to say is that while we seek, we should remain grounded in the tenants(Which are values, I feel) of our faith, and not make the mistake of becoming to rigidly connected to the intellectual flora and fauna along the paths we wander.

Someone once criticized me on this view that Mormonism seems to be always searching for more, yet never finding the complete answer. In one sense, he is correct. My response is “Isn’t that why it’s called Faith? “

Comment # 27 left by Matt W. on March 14th, 2007

I think you captured what I mean pretty well, Matt. I’m not trying to say seeking in and of itself is a bad thing, but if the seeking is distracting one from Christ, from faith, from the Atonement — from the weightier matters — then maybe it’s time to put the issue on the shelf. Not necessarily an easy thing to discern always, but important to keep in mind, methinks.

Comment # 28 left by Michelle on March 14th, 2007

Actually, I don’t see them as so different. In the original post, Matt says that the parts of history and doctrine and theology that matter are those that underscore the values that we are supposed to obtain. I completely agree that none of the process of becoming can be done in a vacuum without appropriate knowledge.

Actually what the post says is as follows:

This Weekend, I had an Epiphany of sorts.

The History of the Church doesn’t matter.

The Doctrine (Teachings) of the Church doesn’t matter.

The “Theology” of the Church doesn’t matter.

This is significanly different than saying “the parts of history and doctrine and theology that matter are those that underscore the values that we are supposed to obtain.”

SmallAxe, I would say some values can be there independent of the Church, but the chances of them all being there in the right balance are less likely.

How would you not need some type of “theology”, “doctrine”, or “historical claim” to make this assertion?

I guess the point I am pushing toward is that it is not possible to separate “fact” from “value”. There is meaning in every fact depending on the contextualization of that fact (which is a type of “history” I would say). I think a better question to ask is, when are certain facts more important than others? If someone comes down with cancer for instance, doctrinal differences are often put aside by debaters to express sympathy. In this circumstance the doctrine of the trinity versus the godhead has less significance; although I would hardly say that it has no significance.

Comment # 29 left by SmallAxe on March 14th, 2007

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail