Book review, and making doctrine fit

[Rob4Hope]

I'm plowing through "This is my doctrine: The development of Mormon Theology (part 1)". Its heavy reading and has sections that, speaking for myself, just drag. But I am seeing a kindof thread.

I've heard others talk about the difference between science and theology. In science, the data is gathered and from that data, a conclusion is drawn that best fits the data--always subject to revision if the data grows and leads to changes. In theology, the conclusion is resolved upon first, and the data is interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion.

An example: DNA science now suggests strongly that the American Indian came from people who migrated over the land bridge and are primarily of Mongolian ancestry. (Did I get that right?). The LDS perspective is that the Nephite and Lamanite groups came from Hebrew ancestry. The DNA doesn't support that, so the LDS church creates interpretations for the data that manipulate the narrative in such a way to keep it consistent.

Well, this book I am reading really does have this latter thread shining through. I'm reading about the priesthood restoration, and about the timing involved in how it was first introduced years after the events were supposed to have happened. Also, the entire Elias discussion, and how JS changed the wording of the scriptures. According to the book, the wording "turn the hearts of... " was supposed to be read "seal the hearts of...". But prior to this change, JS had already declared Malachi as correct, and the exact same wording is in the BofM. There were no changes.

Now all of the sudden a change? This is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE....and considering the BofM was the most correct of any book on earth?

Hunh?

The data, IMHO, supports the conclusion some suggest that JS was having problems dealing with apostasy, and had to continue to give new doctrines to keep people in line. So, revelations were edited and pre-dated, etc. Because the church concludes JS was a prophet, they make the data fit their preconceptions.

I will never EVER be able to go back to this way of thinking, coming to the conclusion first and making the data fit it.

Any other ways the data is made to fit the preconceptions people care to share?

[Rob4Hope]

The whole idea of a "church" is even anacronistic in the New Testament. It wasn't until AFTER the death of Christ that this idea even began. The LDS church has a BIG set of hoops to jump through with this whole idea appearing in its theology, and even Christianity itself has a problem with this in general.

I've read this before--this "church" problem--but its interesting in the context of the book.

[achilles]

I really enjoyed that book.

One of the most jarring parts of the book for me was the discussion of the theological development of our current ideas about Satan. Just knowing how much this "adversary" is more a product of Manichean dualism and Medieval European thought really changes how we should look at this, overhyped character. It's surprising just how firmly so many Mormons have a testimony of Satan... And how often they fear him and torment themselves supposing he is actually there trying to make them fail.

[A New Name]

You can read the 1st chapter and half of the 2nd here on Amazon for free as sort of an enticement to buy the book!

Note: After you click the above link, you'll need the click the "Look Inside" link above the front cover of the book

[Reuben]

It's surprising just how firmly so many Mormons have a testimony of Satan... And how often they fear him and torment themselves supposing he is actually there trying to make them fail.

I recently calculated that there are about 7.1 evil spirits who followed Satan per living human being, assuming the world ends tomorrow. The idea that my house is crammed full of invisible demons trying to make me look at porn is just ridiculous.

About fitting data to doctrine... this is what happens when you're not allowed to change the current theory to fit the facts. Something has to change so the theory and data will be consistent, and the theory can't change, so what else can you do?

[Hagoth]

One of my favorite books. I underlined it so heavily I might just as well have dunked it in yellow ink.

[GoodBoy]

In science, the data is gathered and from that data, a conclusion is drawn that best fits the data--always subject to revision if the data grows and leads to changes. In theology, the conclusion is resolved upon first, and the data is interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion.

Yes. This is why I personally don't find theology, or even philosophy very useful. Theology and philosophy can be entertaining mental exercises, and help people feel superior to others, but don't really help us arrive at the truth as much as looking at the evidence and making and testing hypotheses based on that evidence.