Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The problem of church doctrine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The problem of church doctrine

    There has been plenty of talk about the problem of knowing or defining church doctrine. What is doctrine, what is false doctrine, and how do we figure out those things. Personally, I like to think of church doctrine as a distribution and as long as you are within one standard deviation of the mean then its not false doctrine). I think Nate Oman (over at http://timesandseasons.org) has thought about this issue most carefully. If you have a chance check out the following paper (it uses an approach you lawyers might like):

    "Jurisprudence and the Problem of Church Doctrine"
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1030862

    ABSTRACT

    Within Mormonism, the concept of church doctrine is frequently invoked in theological discussions. What is meant by this term, however, is not entirely clear. This essay argues that the question what is church doctrine? can be usefully analogized to the question what is the law? It then uses the contemporary philosophy of law to analyze the concept of church doctrine within Mormonism
    Last edited by pelagius; 11-14-2008, 08:11 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by pelagius View Post
    There has been plenty of talk about the problem of knowing or defining church doctrine. What is doctrine, what is false doctrine, and how do we figure out those things. Personally, I like to think of church doctrine as a distribution and as long as you are within one standard deviation of the mean then its not false doctrine). I think Nate Oman (over at http://timesandseasons.org) has thought about this issue most carefully. If you have a chance check out the following paper (it uses an approach you lawyers might like):

    "Jurisprudence and the Problem of Church Doctrine"
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1030862
    That looks very interesting. I probably wont have time until later, but thanks for posting it.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pelagius View Post
      There has been plenty of talk about the problem of knowing or defining church doctrine. What is doctrine, what is false doctrine, and how do we figure out those things. Personally, I like to think of church doctrine as a distribution and as long as you are within one standard deviation of the mean then its not false doctrine). I think Nate Oman (over at http://timesandseasons.org) has thought about this issue most carefully. If you have a chance check out the following paper (it uses an approach you lawyers might like):

      "Jurisprudence and the Problem of Church Doctrine"
      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1030862
      I define Doctrine as very narrow and never changes. Basically its

      There is God. His son died for us. You need to be born of the water and the spirit to return to live with him. there might be a couple more. Then there are principles that rarerly change. Then there are rules which change frequently.
      "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

      "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mormon Red Death View Post
        I define Doctrine as very narrow and never changes. Basically its

        There is God. His son died for us. You need to be born of the water and the spirit to return to live with him. there might be a couple more. Then there are principles that rarerly change. Then there are rules which change frequently.

        Fair enough ... but what is the process that you use to determine whether something complies with your definition? That is really what the paper is about.

        I think defining doctrine as "the immutable truth of God" is reasonable but doesn't that potentially leave a group of teaching that are authoritative and binding in some sense that you would not consider doctrine?
        Last edited by pelagius; 11-14-2008, 01:11 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Our hangup with doctrine interestingly reveals our attachment to our ancient forebears. We can't escape them. As Harold Bloom has noted, the kindred word "theology" has a Greek root, and means literally "the logos." As we've discussed previously, "logos" was a Platonic concept, Plato himself owing others for the idea, that somewhat defies precise definition but embraces mediator, or, a medium through which God and humans interface, or God's manifestation on earth. Christ is the Logos incarnted. Now, the kindred word "doctrine", which is synonymous with theology in the religous context, of course has "doctor" as a root, and they are Latinate words.

          My point is our very yearning for doctrine is something ingrained in us from three thousand years back, not necessarily a natural or universal component of religious experience. It's a Western notion that a faith system must have a doctrine or theology at all. But we take the necessity of doctrine for granted as self-evident.

          According to Harold Bloom, Judaism didn't have a doctrine or theology as Christians understand the idea. He says this was a Greek import.
          When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

          --Jonathan Swift

          Comment


          • #6
            Careful SU, you are getting dengerously close to agree with FARMS guy, Louis Midgley:

            The traditional task of theology (from the Greek theos, God, and logos, study of) is to seek understanding of God's reality, to describe divine things rationally, and to elaborate the present meaning of past manifestations of God, whether theoretically, practically, descriptively, or critically. Since scriptures and specific revelations supply Latter-day Saints with authoritative answers to many of the traditional concerns of faith, members of the Church tend to devote little energy to theoretical, speculative, or systematic theology. For Latter-day Saints, faith is anchored in revelations that occurred in history (see History, Significance of). From the perspective of the restored gospel, what can be known about divine things must be revealed by God. Though rationally structured, coherent, and ordered, the content of Latter-day Saint faith is not the fruit of speculation, nor has it been deduced from premises or derived from philosophical or scientific inquiries into the nature of things.

            The word "theology" and much of what it describes originated with Plato, Aristotle, and the Orphics. The word is not found in the Bible or other LDS scriptures. What is typically understood as theology within Christianity was introduced by Origen (A.D. 185-254) and developed by Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Latter-day Saints have little interest in theology in the sense of trying to discover divine things with the unaided resources of the human mind. Even when theology is seen as essentially descriptive or apologetic, it is not entirely at home in the LDS community.

            Not having what has traditionally been understood as theology, Latter-day Saints instead have texts that describe theophanies and special revelations and contain inspired teachings, along with several accounts of God's establishing his covenant people, usually coupled with accounts of a dialectic of obedience and disobedience that followed such events. These accounts may be said to contain "theology," but not in the sense that their meaning is discovered by human ingenuity instead of disclosed through the proclaimed word and will of God.

            Actually, nice thoughts SU. There is a danger is worry too much about theology.
            Last edited by pelagius; 11-14-2008, 02:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pelagius View Post
              Actually, nice thoughts SU. There is a danger is worry too much about theology.
              I'm not saying there's a danger--though God knows theology/doctrine can be too much of a bad thing (I only like to study it long after the fact). I'm just noting that the concept itself, the empty vessel itself, is made by men.
              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

              --Jonathan Swift

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                I'm just noting that the concept itself, the empty vessel itself, is made by men.
                That was the part I was agreeing with (although I put a greater distance between theology and doctrine than you). That is Midgley's point as well ... you and I disgree wildly about the implications but not the insight.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Rather, discovering what the law requires in a particular case is a matter of giving force to the latent normative judgments of previous, controlling precedents. Put another way, to discover the law in a “hard case” a judge creates a story that makes sense of the clearly established cases and then fits the new case into that story in a way that places the whole in the best possible light.

                  In my view, thinking of Church Doctrine as an analogous kind of interpretation provides the best account of how we discover it. The advantage of this view is that it does not require that we have any clear idea about the rule of recognition. It simply requires that we have some easily identifiable core cases of Church Doctrine from which we can reason.
                  This is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves. We can easily imagine that Brother Young and Sister Smith have very different opinions about the rule of recognition for Church Doctrine. For example, Brother Young might believe that Church Doctrine consists only of texts formally canonized by a vote in general conference, while Sister Smith might regard
                  any public sermon by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve as Church Doctrine. Both of them agree, however, that it is Church Doctrine that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and that Latter-day Saints should not drink coffee. When faced with a new question about Church Doctrine, rather than trying to determine which of them has the correct rule of
                  recognition they can simply reason on the basis of clear cases, fitting the new question into a story that will place things in their best possible light. More importantly, I think that this is how most Mormons actually use the concept of Church Doctrine. To be sure, Latter-day Saints point to authoritative statements in support of their claim that this or that
                  proposition or rule of conduct is Church Doctrine. However, all of these claims are made against a background of teachings, experiences, and texts that they seek to accommodate and charitably characterize. It is their interpretation of the totality that produces their conclusions about what is or is not Church Doctrine.
                  This is an attractive idea. I guess the problem I have with it so far in my thinking is that while I agree that Doctrine can a synthesis of previous "easy cases" that accounts for previous teachings, casting them in the best possible light, not all of the ingredients of the synthesis carry equal weight and sometimes they conflict. You are then back to the question of how to weight the elements of the synthesis and are stuck looking for a rule of recognition.

                  If all he is seeking to do is describe what we all do, then I agree. And it does point up why there can legitimate disagreement on a variety of things. It is not a formula for determining official doctrine, however, but I don't think he intends it to be. As he says some things are very clear. Everything else is subject to a well reasoned synthesis of what is known but in these cases doctrine is personal rather than collective or institution, though it may become such if it is persuasive.
                  Last edited by UtahDan; 11-15-2008, 04:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
                    If all he is seeking to do is describe what we all do, then I agree. And it does point up why there can legitimate disagreement on a variety of things. It is not a formula for determining official doctrine, however, but I don't think he intends it to be. As he says some things are very clear. Everything else is subject to a well reasoned synthesis of what is known but in these cases doctrine is personal rather than collective or institution, though it may become such if it is persuasive.
                    UD, you are right. This is a descriptive model. I find it interesting for some of the reasons you highlight in your last pararaph. It is a nice framework for explaining why some doctrines are very well defined but for other doctrines there is really a range of possibilities we can't reject.

                    Really like your last sentence.
                    Last edited by pelagius; 11-15-2008, 07:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pelagius View Post
                      UD, you are right. This is a descriptive model. I find it interesting for some of the reasons you highlight in your last pararaph. It is a nice framework for explaining why some doctrines are very well defined but for other doctrines there is really a range of possibilities we can't reject.

                      Really like your last sentence.
                      So now as I've been out walking in the mid-60's pouring down rain I've been thinking this. We all beat up on BRM for Mormon Doctrine, and to some degree it is deserved, but I wonder what effect that book has had on doctrine. In other words, there are things in there that seem to go beyond what most people imagine official doctrine to be, but was't he doing exactly what Oman was describing which was taking what was know and making a reasoned argument about some gray areas?

                      Obviously in the market place of ideas among the brethren and in the church some of the things in there got rejected. The Catholic Church is not the great and abominable church, for example, but what I would love to know and just don't the depth on is whether there are things that were in Mormon Doctrine that had not been articulated in quite that way before but have more or less become part of the fabric of doctrine because they were persuasive. I think there almost must be. It also casts in a new light the 1000+ doctrinal errors in Mormon Doctrine. Keeping in mind that that was according to two other apostles, 1000+ errors when compared against what? And does that mean they thought he was wrong or had just gone beyond what was known? One has to think that if the 12 were presented with that big list they would agree on some and disagree on many others.

                      I still see why the church doesn't want to let individual general authorities essential make their own syntheses and arguments to the membership without being vetted, but that is, for example exactly what Stephen Robinson did with believing Christ. The parable of the bicycle is arguably doctrine as we are defining it here, though he is not an authoritative source. He has just persuaded a lot of people with a very accessible, easy to understand teaching device. Just interesting in light of the fact that many would disagree that that parable teaches a correct principle, even if well intentioned and pretty harmless.

                      Yes. I like this new descriptive device. It is certainly an aid to understanding.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
                        Obviously in the market place of ideas among the brethren and in the church some of the things in there got rejected. The Catholic Church is not the great and abominable church, for example, but what I would love to know and just don't the depth on is whether there are things that were in Mormon Doctrine that had not been articulated in quite that way before but have more or less become part of the fabric of doctrine because they were persuasive..
                        Great post UD. I think Mormon Doctrine and Bruce R. McConkie would be a really good case study.

                        Let me just (at this point but you make a number of excellent thought provoking points) respond narrowly to whether some things in Mormon Doctrine became doctrine because they were pesuasive and well reasoned from what we know or argee on. What came to my mind was not something from Mormon Doctrine but from Joseph Fielding Smith and his editing of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Given the close assocation of JFS and BRM, I think it's appropriate. In the King Follet sermon Joseph Smith says the following:

                        We say that God himself is a self-existent being. . . . Man . . . exist upon the same principles. . . . The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. . . . The intelligence of spirits has no being, nether will it have an end. . . . There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven.
                        I would argue that Mormon don't believe that the " mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself" ... The doctrine seems to be that the "mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coeternal with God himself." Its not that we believe "coequal" is wrong only that we believe that we are coequal in the sense that we are "coeternal." Why is this the doctrine? I think because people find/found JFS argument persuasive:

                        Undoubtly the proper word here would be "co-eternal" not "co-equal ... For surely the mind of man is not co-equal with God except in the matter of its eternity. It is the direct statement in the Book of Abraham -- accepted by the Church as scripture -- that there are differences in intellegence that exist, that some are more intelligent than others; and God is "more inttelligent than them all" (Abraham 3).
                        JFS contines to argue for co-eternal in the footnote. It seems to me that the use of "co-eternal" become doctrine and intepreting co-equal less narrowly is usually rejected as "false doctrine."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To me the most intriguing part of Oman's piece is the following statement:

                          The
                          notion of Church Doctrine as a story whose totality must be accounted
                          for with a new chapter fits in nicely with Mormon ideas of continuing
                          revelation (e.g. A. of F. 9) and with the reality of evolution in Mormon
                          thought. The requirement that the story be told in the way that places
                          it in the best possible light also accounts for the persistent tendency of
                          Mormons to understand their own history in the rosiest possible terms.
                          Generally, this approach to Mormon history has been characterized as
                          simple apologetics and chalked up to naiveté or perhaps dishonesty.
                          Seeing the discovery of Church Doctrine as an exercise in interpretation,
                          however, suggests that the goal of much of Mormon discussion of
                          history is neither history nor apologetics. Rather it is a search for what is
                          normative and what is not. In seeking to understand their past in the best
                          possible light, Mormons are trying to understand which parts of that past
                          have a claim on them and which parts do not. The stories function less
                          as historical explanations or even “faith promoting” narratives than as an
                          exercise in the discovery of Church Doctrine.
                          To some degree I think this view does help explain why we understand our history in rosy terms ... I have always been uncomfortable with the accusations of whitewashing. I suppose they are true enough but I have always felt that they were right for the wrong reason. I think Oman might be on to something here but I am worried that it might be to covenient of a justification.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pelagius View Post
                            To some degree I think this view does help explain why we understand our history in rosy terms ... I have always been uncomfortable with the accusations of whitewashing. I suppose they are true enough but I have always felt that they were right for the wrong reason. I think Oman might be on to something here but I am worried that it might be to covenient of a justification.
                            That is a very interesting take that Oman represents. Though still I think he has a difficult time wrestling the idea of justification away from critics. My feelings on this are aligned with yours.
                            "Nobody listens to Turtle."
                            -Turtle
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Surfah View Post
                              That is a very interesting take that Oman represents. Though still I think he has a difficult time wrestling the idea of justification away from critics. My feelings on this are aligned with yours.
                              Agreed, still I think it does have bearing for many of us in the following sense. I think viewing our interpretation of history in this light helps us avoid throwing up our hands in despair when particularly rosey views of history are presented in Elder's quorum or Sunday School. We don't have to chalk it up to naivete (although at times it may be this) or dishonesty; I think this has implications for making church more rewarding in the sense of worship as a collective experience rather than an individual experience.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X