Terryl Givens once asked a big-wig at Deseret Book why they didn't publish more books on Mormon theology. The response to his question was something along the lines of, "Well why don't you write one and if we like it we'll publish it."
This story highlights a weird trait about Mormonism. Despite being very religious and spending a great deal of time reading scripture, they don't concern themselves much with theology at least as a systematic rational analysis of the word of God. Sure, every Mormon is an amateur Theologian, but regarding official systematized theology, there's very little of it. There's never been an Augustine of Hippo in Mormonism and never will be.
As far as official statements go, Mormon theology is very limited. If you want to know every thing Mormons officially believe you only have to read James E. Talmage's Articles of Faith and Jesus The Christ. Of course, these aren't nearly as useful for making straw man attacks against Mormonism as The Journal of Discourses or Mormon Doctrine and so aren't as widely known outside of Mormonism.
So if Mormons don't actually believe that many things why is The Journal of Discourses 26 volumes long and why doesn't Sunday School get boring? As Matthew Bowman said: "There is a great deal which Mormons might believe; there is very little that they must believe." (Actually his whole article is a great read: Why Is It So Hard to Figure Out What Mormons Believe?)
And this gets to the heart of Mormonism and it's extreme egalitarianism. Not only can any Mormon be a prophet and theologian, they are encouraged to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Do you have a reason for screaming idiot or are you simply trying to be offensive?
Seems to me that much of the "systematic rational analysis of the word of God" stems from having a fixed canon. In the absence of active revelation, you have to pry meaning out of what you've got.
It doesn't help that what you've got is unreliable and internally inconsistent. So your theology has to become a system of apologetics as well in the absence of clarifying information.
When there's a difficult question about an aspect of theological reality, the tendency has been to just ask (D&C is full of that), and a lot of the harder questions were just flat-out answered (corporeality and separation of God and Christ? Check.) LDS apologetics tend to be historical rather than doctrinal... and when they're doctrinal, it's usually to clarify misconceptions rather than square circles.
To a certain extent, it makes us intellectually lazy -- irreducible contradictions do wonders for cogitative motivation. But there's still plenty to think about.
Yes, when you take the point of view that God has already said all He has to say, you're left with nothing but theology with each new situation that arises.
And I agree also that the Mormon point of view leads to a great deal of laziness. What's the point of studying scripture if you can go to God directly? I've noticed that the average Mormon has a very firm grasp on the basic doctrines of Mormonism, but if you ask one of us for a rigorous scriptural demonstration of why we have those beliefs there's a lot of hemming and hawing and flipping of pages.
That's not to say there's not a scriptural confirmation for our belief system, it's just that, once you've seen the movie a bunch of times, so to speak, you stop paying attention because you already know what happens.
But the laziness is a disservice to all those people with legitimate questions about our faith, both within and without the Church. It's particularly dissatisfying if someone asks, Why? and we are only able to respond, Because God said so.
We should constantly be asking ourselves, Why? Our conclusions we come to and the revelation we receive may not be official Church doctrine, but our ability to talk about the Church in an coherent fashion is increased.
By the way here's an interesting quotation concerning "mental laziness" that seems applicable.
“Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.” Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”- that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out.” Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912), pg. v.
Now, one must remember that the other POV leads to laziness as well. Cat's away, mice etc.
I just got done writing something for your Mom's Sunday School lesson, and it really brought home to me the fact that we're under strict instructions to incorporate all truths into our theological understanding. The drumbeat from the pulpit since before we were born (at least) has been what Roberts said – get an understanding of everything. The distinction drawn between the temporal and spiritual is specious.
The key to understanding the "why"s in our own doctrine is to have it challenged, both by people and what we learn in the "best books". Anything less leaves us feeble.
What I do not miss are the irreducible contradictions I mentioned before. There's no point at which we're told to stop looking.
I love Roberts' quote. :)
Nice discussion.
All men, Mormons or not, are invited to ask God about anything. He is all about teaching us what we need to know. We get to define need.
The process of revelation is involved (double entendre). The process of receiving answers involves real personal investment and can be a process that takes time and experience.
There is nothing about this world, the heavens or the nature of God that is unknowable (IMHO), but as will all questions, sometimes the answer is: "Its none of your business." Or "Not now."; but sometimes, "What is it that you wanted?" Seldom do we know enough to ask the question the right way. Seldom is the answer as simple as we might have expected.
Nephi and Joseph Smith are the iconic seekers who found what they sought at a level beyond what they knew to ask, but not beyond what they wanted. I believe statements by both of them that God wants to pour knowledge out upon His children, if they will seek it with faith.
My experience is that patient, faithful seeking, with an ample amount of personal investment, brings really awesome returns. When I had a once a month teaching assignment in my priesthood quorum, over the course of weeks I read the material of each lesson, searched the scriptures for added dimensions, prayed for understanding, meditated, and gradually received wonderful views that have greatly broadened my understanding of who I am, who God is, and what He is doing. What I received could not really be communicated to the class, because a) it is personal and b) it means little to someone else without the personal investment.
Interesting, sometimes these answers to questions help clarify and substantiate the basic doctrines of Christ's Gospel, but they do not supplant it. They are consistent with it.
Alden's point about the fixed canon is good. There was not enough to go on, and rather than seeking knowledge from God, folks built their own philosophies to answer, leaving them often in pretzel-like contortions, but without the knowledge that Nephi received.
Martin Luther and his fellows during the Reformation were convinced that a) the Church had gotten lots wrong, which was correct. And b) that they could all come to a knowledge of the truth by appeal to the Bible in the context of academic, philosophical argument.
Well, hundreds of years of religious slaughter across Europe and the current existence of hundreds of Protestant denominations following divergent doctrines gives lie to that naive hope.
However, all of the key points of contention of the Reformation have been soundly answered with definitive answers that are self consistent and consistent with the Bible in the Restoration. These come not as a list of answers, but in the context of Joseph Smith's revelatory experience, in the Book of Mormon, and in the struggle of the early Restored Church to put itself in order- the nature of God, the Sacrament, discipline in the Church, the relation between the Church and Government, the nature of marriage, faith and works, agency, etc, etc.
This morning, Alden's mother and I discussed this thread and agreed that while there are many Mormons that are extremely deeply read in the Scriptures and have great understanding, it is the guidance and culture of the Church to not put forward for public consumption what has been privately revealed.
I remember Dallin Oaks, as BYU president, sitting thru Sunday School and priesthood lessons without a comment---ever.
The talks in General Conference focus on the basic application of the gospel, though those speaking could give graduate-level courses in the nature of God. We are counseled to only share what the Brethren have taught and to not get out there with our extended understandings or to build ourselves up as theologians, because there is danger there. Let the Prophet lay down the doctrine for the Church.
As the members of the Church embrace the scriptures which we have, and use them to come to know God, we are told that there is much more that He has to give to us, including: the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, the writings of the other scattered tribes of Israel, and etc. Not to mention the vistas of personal revelation as received by Nephi, Jacob, the Brother of Jared, etc.
As we were reading this morning in the Book of Mormon, we came to 2 Nephi 7, in which Isaiah addresses this directly:
4 The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season unto thee, O house of Israel. When ye are weary he waketh morning by morning. He waketh mine ear to hear as the learned.
5 The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
...
10 Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and hath no light?
11 Behold all ye that kindle fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks, walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks which ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand—ye shall lie down in sorrow.
So, I think that to consider the LDS people to be dismissive of theology is to grossly misunderstand what is really happening in every ward. I suspect that the gauge of how deep the knowledge of God is reflected more in the level of service and charity in the local ward than will be revealed in the discourse in Gospel Doctrine class or in Mormon writings or in the blog world.
Post a Comment