Hi everybody. I recently began reading Douglas Davies’ book, An Introduction to Mormonism, mostly on the strength of D. Michael Quinn’s stunning review.

Something caught my eye in the intro that I wanted to hear your thoughts on.

Davies remarks that,

“…Mormonism has by no means developed as formal an academic tradition of theology as it is present in many other major Christian denominations. This is largely because it possesses prophetic revelations from the past and a living prophet in the present, both of which constrain the exploratory tendencies of theologians in other churches. What Mormonism has come to possess is a relatively large group of historians who are sometimes thought to substitute for theologians, but that is only partially true” (pp. 1-2).

It occurs to me that I’m not entirely sure what Mormon theology would look like. The book was published in 2003, so things may have changed since then. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

There is a guy who got a PhD in Mormon Theology here in the UK, can't remember his name, so he must have got something

You are probably thinking of Tyler Moulton who did a PhD thesis on Joseph Smith's unique teachings at Nottingham University. A main focus was the atonement.

His reason for doing the PhD was that he was half promised a job at BYU but had to get his PhD from another university. He lived in England for 3 or 4 years to do this degree with Nottingham.

When he returned to the States, armed with a credible PhD, he was refused the job because he was told "we don't do theology". He was an extremely nice guy, but must have been bitterly disappointed to have followed BYU faculty's advice in choosing the PhD course then having them reneg on their offer.

I found a link to Tyler Moulton's blog, where he publishes a lot of his essays: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/tylerm/

Edited to add-- sorry, not the link I thought it was, but an interesting journal nonetheless. I'll post back if I find something more substantive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2013 06:43PM by Darkfem.

Yes, darkfem, that's Tyler.

"Divine benevolence, embodiment, and salvation in the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon":

http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1447/1/Moulton_-_thesis_-_nottingham.pdf

I would have to say the definitive work on an attempt at formalizing lds theology is Blake Ostler's three volume "Exploring Mormon Thought" - go to blakeostler.com

Historically you could look at stuff by bh roberts, the pratt brothers and john widtsoe.

Let me try and give an abbreviated view of their theology. First let’s establish what theology is and isn't, theology is a systematic and somewhat rational study of god, god’s interaction with its creation and the nature of religious and moral truths. It can also mean the rules of a specific religion but that isn't what we are looking for. Given this definition Mormonism doesn't have a true theology because of the organization of the church (which I will explain), but all the same there is a fairly consistent underlying theme to Mormon beliefs.

God was created as an imperfect being; god became perfect and as such was granted godhood. God created us, and we can also be ordained to godhood. As man is now god once was, ad god is man can become. God instituted two things that would enable his imperfect creations to obtain perfection. The first being the organization of his church, the second is called the Plan of Salvation. The organization in addition to providing moral and spiritual guidance also provides access to a lengthy set of guidelines and ceremonies that god has required. The Plan is mostly just the operational procedures of the creation and the process that they call repentance. It should be noted that the Plan is erroneously named it does not provide salvation; it is only a means of leveling the playing field.

The organization that god has provided is sole source of godhood. Since the organization is run by one person that person is the sole dispenser of salvation. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young confirmed this by proclaiming that they are the judge not Jesus. Since the organization has presumably retained its divine mandate but at the same time has changed its ceremonies it is difficult to pin down the theology, and at times one must conclude that there is none. However the fact remains that Mormon theology is that salvation comes from the organization by way of the Plan.

Or so it seems to me.

Thanks, Jacob!

Your insights about the organization are consistent with the points Davies makes as the book unfolds. He focuses a lot on the idea that "'Principle' and 'law'...comprise a category of LDS thought: they are ideas necessary for thinking about everything else and are themselves non-reducible to other ideas" (p. 23).

The reason I left TSCC was the lack of theology. When I tried to make appointments with the Bishop to have discussions regarding doctrine, they never went well.

The last time I asked for an appointment the Bishop said, "There's nothing else we can do for you! We can't help you anymore." I wasn't asking for anything but info.

Never went back. There's no "doctrine" that says I must. There's only "policy."

When the man in charge can't answer your questions, you have outgrown whatever he's in charge of.

I would say the closest is Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage. Clearly the Book of Mormon and D&C do not accurately reflect the current theology.

From what I understand his writings really codified the godhead etc.

However, I definitely agree with the statement above - the Mormon theology is significantly in flux. Furthermore many different people within the religion have significantly different viewpoints and understandings because of that. Just one of many examples is some consider caffeine taboo and some consider face cards taboo.

I feel that ALL Christian religions have a significant amount of ambiguity however - especially in the definition of God. Is he loving or a jerk? It's hard to tell...

The Oncoming Storm - bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I feel that ALL Christian religions have a
> significant amount of ambiguity however -
> especially in the definition of God. Is he loving
> or a jerk? It's hard to tell...


Quite true, but many of the Christian religions are now happy to explore the inconsistencies. In LDS inc there is only one person who can speak on this and the answer is... He's loving you jerk.

Nice :)

Mormon theology was bought up in a hostile takeover by Intellectual Reserve, sub-divided into shares and sold to investors.

shoving a ferret up your ass a theology.

but hey, if it's working for you....

I have concluded that there is a very limited Mormon Theology that is called "The Gospel" in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants:

Adam transgressed
Man became sinful and needed a redeemer
Christ Came and did the redeemer thingy
We follow Christ by:
Getting baptized
Getting the Holy Ghost
Doing stuff Jesus did
Oh, and by the way, God the Father planned it all, and it happened just as he planned.

There is no other doctrine that the church will stand behind. Every other principle or policy or prophetic utterance is held at bay for fear that some future development will alter it's stability as doctrine. Everything else is speculation and lore and tradition and the utterance of man.

But those core doctrinal things are sacrosanct. They are clearly doctrine and define the actual limits of Mormon theology.

This is why Adam is sacrosanct. He had to be an actual person, regardless of whether he was the first human, the father of all races today, or the prophet of any dispensation. All of those details can go to the trashcan, but Adam had to exist. Otherwise the doctrine is false. Without Adam there is no fall and no need for Mr. Redeemer.

This is why Jesus is sacrosanct. He had to be part god, part human, and he had to have lived and died and resurrected and paid some horrific price in Gethsemane. Whether he performed miracles, called disciples, was crucified, or even came to America are all details that could easily be discarded. But without those core elements, Jesus cannot be the redeemer.

There are other dominoes: Adam, then Jesus, then Authority, then Ordinances, are all dominoes that are dependent upon each other, but some of these aren't even in the theology.

The LDS church desperately needs an office of doctrinal interpretation. But they are in this bind of not being able to nail the doctrine down. It could change to match the weather, and everyone declares "We thank thee oh god for a prophet."

Meanwhile, wards, stakes, and universities are filled with experts clarifying the theology of Mormondom; the same theology that tomorrow looks different than it did today, and nobody notices or speaks openly about the change.

If there was a perfect religion, this is definitely it!

To a certain extent I think you place to much emphasis on the individual parts of the plan. It isn't so much the fact that it physically took place. I think the more important thing is that god planned and is now executing the plan. I could see a time that Mormons take a more modern and illustrative view of things like Adam, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. Even the BOM could be relegated to moral fiction, what is important is that god knows what he is doing. Hand in hand with that is that god tells the current CEO what he should do. I stand by what I said above, first the organization/CEO, second the Plan.

For an excellent history of the development of what might pass for Mormon theology, see the very recent book by a BYU professor, "This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology."

My review and summary is at http://packham.n4m.org/doctrine.htm

(Don't be put off by the fact that the author is at BYU. He is not at all biased.)

If they nailed down a theology, it would be tough for someone to come back 50 years from now and say, "I don't know that we teach that." Still love that quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Organization_of_the_Manichaean_Church
http://www.theopedia.com/Manicheanism

The names have changed but the "Bible-in-a-blender" theology is there with heavy borrowings from other sources in Mormonism.

Gnostic nuvo reduced don't to easily digested corporate MoNuggets of spirituality driven to your nearest chapel in easy process how to Emanuals.

down not don't

It sounds a lot like Zoroastrianism to me.

Well, prophets are prophets. Strange term prophet. I wonder if it needs the guy(always is) to be dead for the theology to really get going?

TSCC is a turbo-example of Daniel Dennett's theory of evolution by natural selection operating as a mechanism in the doctrines of churches. He stated that ideas that become distressing are quietly abandoned. Those ideas which have the effect of keeping adherants or attracting converts are emphasized. As they go along, changes occur which keep pace with what's currently culturally and socially acceptable.

Mormonism has some problems with the workings of this mechanism that other chruches don't though, because of the belief in ongoing revelation and implied infallibility of the prophets. The best they can do is magically remove a prophet's infallibility when he dies, and dissemble about the outlandish things they said.

Mormon Theology in a nutshell--so easy the primary kids know it:

"Follow the prophet, he knows the way. Follow the prophet don't go astray"

Whatever that guy says.

+100. Bang on. 'Theology' is whatever the old man in charge 'reveals'

Ok, I am not an expert, but...

When I think "Mormon theology", I automatically think of "Keys to the Science of Theology" by Parley P. Pratt. An interesting book, and not a bad read, but it really does not address the specific questions about just what the TSSC does consider as specific issues of "theology.

More importantly, I do not think it is relevent to the TSSC today, as I have never heard any modern "church officials" refer to it, or the ideas presented within the publication. It is not readily available at the approved "Deseret Book", and I just about had to steal the paperback copy that I had.

I agree, the modern TSCC does not really have a theology so to speak. Only as it pertains to what the leaders feel is "inspired" or appropriate at the time.

The theological foundations of the mormon religion.

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/the-theological-foundations-of-the-mormon-religion-2/