Why Mormons don't get theological respect?

[Surfah]

Individual Mormons can have coherent theologies, but Mormonism's theology (or doctrine, or teaching, or something) is mutable.

Many Christians find this mutability confusing and incoherent. Therefore, they also easily jump to the "Mormonism is a made up religion" position.

I agree with this. To me though, this is one of the great appeals of Mormonism. But I understand it as a stumbling block for others.

[UtahDan]

I think missionaries do to some degree. At least I remember I did. We teach people that we can become like Him. Few grasp that concept though and what that means. But I recall a few astute investigators who immediately jumped on that. One guy told me that was blasphemous. I've shared this story before. I asked him what he thought of eternal progression then and he said that he can't imagine doing anything but being an angel praising and worshiping God. So I told him he could be my angel then. He's the same guy who said we're not children of God but rather children of wrath. So I made up my own version of I Am a Child of Wrath and sang it to him. He also talked about celestial sex and creating spirit bodies for spiritual offspring. He asked what I thought of that and I told him I am not sure if that is the exact mechanism, but it sounds good to me. He blew up. I told him to calm down and not worry about it because he'll be too busy praising me.

I love it when the real Surfah makes an appearance.

[DapperDan]

Early Christianity co-opted a lot more than that.

Yes, but my focus was more on the "why" than the "what".

[UtahDan]

Mormons have spent the last couple of generations drumming on "intellectuals" and the systematic application of rationalism to theological questions. Mormons don't need learned commentaries, scriptural exegesis, rigorous seminaries (in the traditional sense of that word), etc. They teach "by the spirit", not by intellectual or academic or theological exposition.

in addition, Mormonism is largely a religion of the layman, with all the pros an cons that that entails.

IMO, the LDS church sorely needs a body of trained theologians to help Mormonism take its place among the great revealed religions of the world. While I think the BYU religion department has some top-notch minds, I don't think it's quite the right vehicle for this.

This is such an interesting train of thought. Let me ask you or others who know, how do other theologies deal with paradoxes, inconsistencies and mysteries? One the problems that I have with a great deal of the apologetics in our faith is that it tries to make a show of applying rationalism but will retreat from it when that application doesn't produce the answer they want it to produce. In other words, they will try to make a reasoned argument to you, but if reason and evidence are not on their side they will discard them and point to the idea that ETB articulated in his 14 fundamentals talk which has been quote a couple times recently in general conference:

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire" (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

So it is hard for me to want to have a conversation about LDS theology if we cannot agree on rationalism as being one of the ground rules. If truth is not arrived at by reason, but is arrived, ultimately, by consulting a source, what is there really to discuss? Is this not a problem unique to a theology that says that truth, ultimately, is on the lips of one person regardless of whether any past prophet or even the canon agree? Doesn't that take all the common ground away for interacting with other theologies that are rationally based?

What do people think?

[TheBYUGuy]

We will ultimately be judged by our fruits. Regardless of whether a Mormon believes in endless celestial sex or that Native Americans can become white and delightsome by being baptized, people will decide whether to respect and associate with us based on our behavior. If we go about serving others and treating everyone with respect, that will go a long way.

My Baptist friends will vouch for me because of how I act, not because of what their preacher said about what I supposedly believe. And I care a lot more about living my life as a normal and respected member of society than whether my beliefs are classified as "mainstream" by outside observers.

[Paperback Writer]

Just my opinion, but I think it would help sort out the various inconsistencies in LDS belief, as well as allow for new insights and understandings of the nature of the LDS God(s). I think it could produce some really cool stuff, while also undercutting some of the lamer apologetics that are out there. I don't see the body as apologists per se. I'd just like to see/read/hear what they come up with.

The highest levels of LDS leadership aren't scholars or theologians (for the most part). (NOTE: NOT INTENDED AS A CRITICISM!) They're busy executive-apostles who are running an enormous organization. They're too busy to tackle these issues. I think a body of LDS theologians could be instrumental in producing modern-day revelation, something people often claim is missing from today's church. I'm not saying they would write new sections of the D&C (but maybe?), but - assuming they're working under the auspices of almighty God with the approval of HIS representatives on earth - they could spark new questions, lines of inquiry, and spiritual-mystical-theological insights.

The Jews had Maimonides. The Catholics had Aquinas. The Muslims had al-Ghazali. It's time for a Mormon to step up.

Again, just my opinion.

But this has already been attempted. In 1958 to be exact, by Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine". Since I'm new, I'll state that I'm being somewhat sarcastic. But MD also illustrates some of the problems with such an approach...or not if one is a McConkie lover. Granted that Bruce R. McConkie wasn't a sanctioned church committee...perhaps a committee of one...and a formidable one.

But a theological body would seem to take territory away from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. And ceding that territory would be unprecedented, at least by my understanding. What if this theological body had determined that there was no scriptural basis for denying blacks the priesthood... in say 1950. What if a similar view is determined for females and the priesthood today? Or whether homosexual behavior is a sin when a couple is legally married?

Personally, I agree with a theological body to determine LDS doctrine. The problem is what authority it would be granted? Would any doctrines or "white papers" have to have the blessing of the FP and Q12? What if there was not a consensus? We already know what happens when even the Prophet has a different view than others in the Q12. I'm referring to David O. McKay and blacks and the priesthood.

Just my $0.2.

[jay santos]

I'm all for the intellectuals, but I don't think that's the issue here. If the goal is theological respect, you're better off pouring money into PR than scholar pursuit.

[Green Lantern]

But this has already been attempted. In 1958 to be exact, by Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine". Since I'm new, I'll state that I'm being somewhat sarcastic. But MD also illustrates some of the problems with such an approach...or not if one is a McConkie lover. Granted that Bruce R. McConkie wasn't a sanctioned church committee...perhaps a committee of one...and a formidable one.

But a theological body would seem to take territory away from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. And ceding that territory would be unprecedented, at least by my understanding. What if this theological body had determined that there was no scriptural basis for denying blacks the priesthood... in say 1950. What if a similar view is determined for females and the priesthood today? Or whether homosexual behavior is a sin when a couple is legally married?

Personally, I agree with a theological body to determine LDS doctrine. The problem is what authority it would be granted? Would any doctrines or "white papers" have to have the blessing of the FP and Q12? What if there was not a consensus? We already know what happens when even the Prophet has a different view than others in the Q12. I'm referring to David O. McKay and blacks and the priesthood.

Just my $0.2.

What if that committee was made up of Apostles and Seventies? Perhaps some Apostles could be called for their administrative abilities and some could be called for their theological learning.

[SeattleUte]

Theology is essentially an art form. This is like asking why Dan Brown doesn't get any respect for the artistry of his work.

[Commando]

What if that committee was made up of Apostles and Seventies? Perhaps some Apostles could be called for their administrative abilities and some could be called for their theological learning.

We just need more Hugh Nibleys, which only come around once in a generation...

However, I don't think we need a committee. All that would lead to is an endless stream of inquiries that comes from a need to shelve all things known and unknown. As I understand it, salvation is a personal journey and we only need skeletal guidance, not a Final Word on every damn thing under the sun... it's just not wise to need to be instructed in all things.

[Green Lantern]

We just need more Hugh Nibleys, which only come around once in a generation...

However, I don't think we need a committee. All that would lead to is an endless stream of inquiries that comes from a need to shelve all things known and unknown. As I understand it, salvation is a personal journey and we only need skeletal guidance, not a Final Word on every damn thing under the sun... it's just not wise to need to be instructed in all things.

Well one of the problems is the mindset of much of the church. We're always looking for more specific guidance so they'd want hard-line answers to questions. I guess what I'm envisioning, in my naive idealism, is a "School of the Prophets" type of group that would sit around and discuss tough gospel questions and then publish all the crazy crap they come up with.

[UtahDan]

What if that committee was made up of Apostles and Seventies? Perhaps some Apostles could be called for their administrative abilities and some could be called for their theological learning.

I think this highlights the problem. There are serious theologians among the brethren from time to time, but certainly not all are. Not even a majority presently. I mean that as no slight and I'm not saying they don't understand a great deal, I'm saying that some have wrestled with more subtleties than others and some have better tools (rationally oriented tools) to do so than others and to place them in context with other theologies.

The problem here is that there is not a problem that justifies any radical change. If the church was losing half it's membership to theological challenges from other quarters, then maybe what would justify or prompt a serious effort in this regard. But that just isn't happening. The challenge to the modern church is from secularism and that is a battle ground that is all about rationalism and, as I say in my previous post, the church is forced to retreat from rationalism in the end (for example, proof of the First Vision, gold plates, etc. is always ultimately going to be spiritual and subjective). So I don't view the church as wanting to fight on that ground at this point. I think the church is much more effective in saying "we are family oriented, we are normal, we teach about Jesus, come to our community and you will feel happy and welcome."

If I am the church and my goal is to maximize tithe paying membership I emphasize the strengths I highlight above. I tell the membership that they should not analyse the church from a rational perspective (exactly as ETB does), knowing that this will be the end of the inquiry for most, and then at the margins support a modest number of apologists who can give rational answers where they can be given. I think this approach will cause the vast majority to (1) not ask hard questions (2) feel satisfied that they have received solid answers from apologists if they do have hard questions or (3) feel like they have enough answer and accept that what ETB says is enough to cover the rest. In other words, pretty much exactly what it is doing now.

You will lose some, but I think you lose many more by fighting on the unfavorable ground of rationalism.

[Non Sequitur]

We will ultimately be judged by our fruits. Regardless of whether a Mormon believes in endless celestial sex or that Native Americans can become white and delightsome by being baptized, people will decide whether to respect and associate with us based on our behavior. If we go about serving others and treating everyone with respect, that will go a long way.

My Baptist friends will vouch for me because of how I act, not because of what their preacher said about what I supposedly believe. And I care a lot more about living my life as a normal and respected member of society than whether my beliefs are classified as "mainstream" by outside observers.

So how is that different than joining the Elks?

[Surfah]

So how is that different than joining the Elks?

No dollar beers.

[woot]

This is such an interesting train of thought. Let me ask you or others who know, how do other theologies deal with paradoxes, inconsistencies and mysteries? One the problems that I have with a great deal of the apologetics in our faith is that it tries to make a show of applying rationalism but will retreat from it when that application doesn't produce the answer they want it to produce. In other words, they will try to make a reasoned argument to you, but if reason and evidence are not on their side they will discard them and point to the idea that ETB articulated in his 14 fundamentals talk which has been quote a couple times recently in general conference:



So it is hard for me to want to have a conversation about LDS theology if we cannot agree on rationalism as being one of the ground rules. If truth is not arrived at by reason, but is arrived, ultimately, by consulting a source, what is there really to discuss? Is this not a problem unique to a theology that says that truth, ultimately, is on the lips of one person regardless of whether any past prophet or even the canon agree? Doesn't that take all the common ground away for interacting with other theologies that are rationally based?

What do people think?

This is the biggest problem, I think, and one of the reasons why theology in general is not a respected field. It is not conducive to intellectual honesty when the ground rules state that there are certain assumptions that must not be questioned.

I agree that some interesting things would come out of a Mormon think tank, as it would require some of the loose ends and inconsistencies to be addressed, but it would nevertheless be an exercise in intellectual gymnastics, a "who can shoehorn the most disparate assumptions into a coherent-ish narrative" contest. Incidentally, Mormon Doctrine, as someone else brought up, is what happens when attempts like these are made. That book is full of half-baked logic, offensive speculation, and absurdity, much like the work of the "great" theologians of the more respected religions.

If this theological think tank were going to happen, it would have to be the quorum of 12 itself. I though that the presiding bishopric was in charge of running business, so why not just appoint more of them? Let there be 20 counselors instead of 2, and let those guys be the MBAs and attorneys, instead of having them dominate the 12. Let the 12 be those who have an interest in the deeper theological issues, rather than those who understand organizational behavior. The church should really consider divorcing itself from its money-making schemes anyway, and this would be a step in that direction.