NOM

Hi fellow Nommies,

Several times now i've seen the assertion in post-Mormon circles that Mormonism has no theology.

It's a fascinating statement that I don't really understand. Can anyone enlighten me?

thanks!

It's a vague statement that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It probably refers to the fact that there is no immutable, unchanging doctrine or doctrines within the Mormon Church. But, that's really a human thing, applying to humanity and churches in general, so it's not really an indictment of Mormon theology. The old idea, from Joseph and Brigham, isn't that there wasn't supposed to be fixed, unchanging doctrine. Continuous revelation would lead to evolution in understanding and theology.

There also isn't any clear source of Mormon theology. The church leaders, the hierarchy, and particularly the president are the only ones allow to proclaim doctrine and theology for the church, but they're not theologians for the most part. They're administrators. Others, including professors of religion at BYU, do study Mormon theology. There is a general sense of Mormon theology. Again, the lack of an authoritative source isn't unique to Mormonism. The Pope is considered authoritative but only when he speaks ex cathedra, which is pretty rare. There are lots of different understandings of Catholic theology within the Catholic umbrella. The same is true of other major denominations. For a relatively small church with a charismatic leader there may indeed be a source of theology.

It's hard to have theology when you don't have theologians. When your religion is run by lawyers and businessmen you sort of have to repurpose policy as theology. It kinda looks like this.



I think Jeffret hit the Jello on the head when he said:

It probably refers to the fact that there is no immutable, unchanging doctrine or doctrines within the Mormon Church.

Charles Harrell's This Is My Doctrine does an excellent job of demonstrating just how fluid Mormon theology is. The church also did a pretty good job of that by publishing the Gospel Topics essays with no names attached. It clearly demonstrates that they don't want to be tied down to theology. Even revelation doesn't act like doctrine. We were assured that the November '15 policy was revelation, but three years later it was de-emphasized also by revelation. Even the Articles of Faith don't really represent Mormon theology accurately. They say we believe in the literal gathering of Israel. That was once true but now we only believe in the symbolic gathering of Israel.

Theology operates logically. You have premises and you build logical conclusions based on those premises. Thomas Aquinas has a totally coherent theology based on logic his various premises.

Mormonism has no theology because it's based on authoritative statements that are self-contradictory. It's not based on premises and their logical consequences. It's based on a bunch of random things that Joseph Smith taught and the current LDS leaders assert. These contradict each other logically, showing that there's no theological basis for any of the teaching.

Mormonism's heart is = obey leaders. Thus there is no theology.

John Hamer wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:56 pm

Mormonism has no theology because it's based on authoritative statements that are self-contradictory.

Although, if you point this out, Mormon leaders will deny it and say that it only APPEARS that LDS theology or doctrine isn't harmonious with itself. And that would be because YOU don't understand it perfectly. In their world Mormon doctrine is completely harmonious with the Biblical scriptures as well as any modern Canon or "revelations".

Leadership wants very badly to have a concrete theology so that they might appear to be a serious and all grown up religion.
It's hard to be seen as the adult in the room when you're the one wearing the clown suit.

Thanks for your responses everyone. I think some of my confusion is that in my mormon bubble i've never been exposed to faiths that have a more developed and rigorous theology, so i really have no foundation to understand the claim that Mormonism lacks it. I previously would have equated theology with truth claims, but i'm starting to see there's more to it than that.

I think believing mormons would claim they have a theology: concepts about the nature of God, the mission of Jesus and the atonement, the plan of salvation. But perhaps these are best understood as simply assertions made by Joseph Smith. Certainly there is very little in the sense of logical conclusions that the church leaders develop based on these core concepts, it's pretty much left up to the members to do that work. I agree with John, pretty much the only conclusions that the 'truth claims' lead to is simply to obey the leaders, and that the church is essential to everything.

John Hamer wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:56 pm

Theology operates logically. You have premises and you build logical conclusions based on those premises. Thomas Aquinas has a totally coherent theology based on logic his various premises.

Mormonism has no theology because it's based on authoritative statements that are self-contradictory. It's not based on premises and their logical consequences. It's based on a bunch of random things that Joseph Smith taught and the current LDS leaders assert. These contradict each other logically, showing that there's no theological basis for any of the teaching.

Mormonism's heart is = obey leaders. Thus there is no theology.

Is it just me, or when Hamer shows up does it feel like a heavenly visitation?

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:29 pm

John Hamer wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:56 pm

Theology operates logically. You have premises and you build logical conclusions based on those premises. Thomas Aquinas has a totally coherent theology based on logic his various premises.

Mormonism has no theology because it's based on authoritative statements that are self-contradictory. It's not based on premises and their logical consequences. It's based on a bunch of random things that Joseph Smith taught and the current LDS leaders assert. These contradict each other logically, showing that there's no theological basis for any of the teaching.

Mormonism's heart is = obey leaders. Thus there is no theology.

Is it just me, or when Hamer shows up does it feel like a heavenly visitation?

Just you? I don't know this dude, though it feels like I should...

Aaaaaanyway, I want to add to this Hamer fellow's answer that Mormons are sometimes warned away from deriving new doctrine from old using logical reasoning. Maybe it's to protect leaders' authority, maybe it's because the inherent contradictions mean that you can prove anything from its premises (literally true because you can prove falsity), maybe it's because people have already done that and ended up in the weeds...

Anyway, boys and girls, stay close to the trunk of the gospel tree. The branches are fun but dangerous. Take your cues from the brethren.

Reuben wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:00 am

Just you? I don't know this dude, though it feels like I should...

He's the Toronto pastor of the Community of Christ and one of those Infants who have been known to reside on Thrones, among other things.

I have heard the claim that continuous revelation means that the doctrine can be changed. But since it's revelation it is the mind and will of God. This is just the apologetic version of what John Hamer said. It is alleged to be a strength of the LDS church, but it rarely seems to end up that way.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:14 pm

Even the Articles of Faith don't really represent Mormon theology accurately. They say we believe in the literal gathering of Israel. That was once true but now we only believe in the symbolic gathering of Israel.

I think many orthodox Mormons would still say they believe in a literal gathering, just not in the short term. What's the belief surrounding the second coming? That people will gather at Jerusalem and New Jerusalem on the American continent? I lost track. It may no longer be a belief that is emphasized but I think many people continue to hold that belief... that sometime during or in the immediate lead-up to a literal second coming, that members will be forced to gather into one physical location to remain safe from the world.

And I don't know... I think there is a certain logic behind Mormon teachings/theology. I may not agree with the logic and I can't say how much of the theology is uniquely Mormon (not something inherited from Christianity), but for the orthodox believer's perspective it's logical.

Something I hear often at church:
Assumptions: We all sin. People must pay the price for sin. Only a perfect person can pay the price for sin. People are incapable of paying the price for sin because they are imperfect.
Extrapolations: Jesus paid the price for our sins. How did Jesus do it? He was perfect? How was Jesus able to be perfect? Because he was god made flesh. How did he pull that off? His dad was god and he had a human mother.

Or more often:
Assumptions: Jesus had a church. There was this thing called the great apostasy and the church was lost.
Extrapolations: The church needed to be restored.

And I'd argue that the internal logic has a chicken and egg thing going; that you could reverse the extrapolations and assumptions and apply the logic in the other direction; The church was restored. Why? Jesus must have founded a church and it must have fallen away, why else would it have needed to be restored?

It may all be a scenario where someone builds a prison around themselves just to turn around and try to devise ways to escape, but to a believer it's very logical.

This is sort of a tangent, but this thread got me thinking...

Who is currently driving the theology of the church, the prophet and/or apostles or the correlation department and/or the lawyers?

Can Nelson and the rest of the Q15 pen a proclamation and release it to the world without first running it past correlation and the lawyers? Why? Why not?

And it would seem that the whole goal of the correlation department is to ensure that anything new that's said can be entirely contained within the boundaries of nearly 200 year old theology.

We've had many policy shifts and doctrinal shifts that were reinterpreted as policy shifts, but what was the actual last bit of new theology? D&C 138 from 1918?

While "whatever we come up with" may not be a systematic theology, it is a potent dogma for Mormons.

nibbler wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:10 pm

Who is currently driving the theology of the church, the prophet and/or apostles or the correlation department and/or the lawyers?

The last I heard it was an old dude in a leaky boat who is hard of hearing, keeps steering in circles, and has nothing to offer but stale crackers. Or maybe it's the director of the Ensign Peak Investment Fund?

But actually, I think your assessment is about right. The inspiration of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators seems to be circumscribed by boundaries maintained by the correlation committee and legal team. Russell Nelson made it very clear on his first attempt to explain the exclusion policy that they reviewed several options set forth by the lawyers before using inspiration to pick one of the legally-vetted options. I would love to see what would happen if an apostle got up in conference and actually tried to say something prophetic that had not been approved by his handlers. I guess we have seen that to some degree with Poleman and Packer's redacted speeches. In Packer's case he was actually saying what they believe, they just didn't want it to be quite that obvious because they are so very touchy about getting criticism. Not quite as thick-skinned as Jesus and Paul in that regard.

Theology doesn't work well in "unhealthy organizations" (i.e., cults).

I would consider myself pretty uninformed when it comes to theology.

But from brief readings from respectable Christian theologians, such as Paul Tillich, these folks do deep dives into trying to understand God, with the maintained assumption that God is there but mostly a mystery to us. I could be wrong in this, but at least some attempt to do so while being consistent with sound philosophical reasoning. Mormonism doesn't do well with this because (a) Mormons lack humility in their "theology"; (b) related to (a) Mormons know everything and there's nothing else to know until God (Rusty) says something needs to change (don't think, just obey); and (c) Mormons don't like philosophical reasoning.

And when I say "Mormons" I don't mean the average Mormon. I mean the corporation of the president as previously posts have mentioned, is composed of esteemed men of learning and earnings in the (business) ways of the world. You know, just like the 12 dudes who followed Jesus.

Corsair wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:24 pm

I have heard the claim that continuous revelation means that the doctrine can be changed. But since it's revelation it is the mind and will of God. This is just the apologetic version of what John Hamer said. It is alleged to be a strength of the LDS church, but it rarely seems to end up that way.

Doctrine is not theology. Yes, LDS apologists argue that you can make new authoritative statements that logically contradict past authoritative statements. This apologetic is an admission that Mormons have no actual theology; they have arbitrary doctrines that are logically self-contradictory, which are therefore self-evidently false propositions.

John Hamer wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:44 pm

Corsair wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:24 pm

I have heard the claim that continuous revelation means that the doctrine can be changed. But since it's revelation it is the mind and will of God. This is just the apologetic version of what John Hamer said. It is alleged to be a strength of the LDS church, but it rarely seems to end up that way.

Doctrine is not theology. Yes, LDS apologists argue that you can make new authoritative statements that logically contradict past authoritative statements. This apologetic is an admission that Mormons have no actual theology; they have arbitrary doctrines that are logically self-contradictory, which are therefore self-evidently false propositions.

You mean like this?

1Nephi 3:7

"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."

D&C 124:49

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."


So which is it?

Does God not give a commandment unless there is a way prepared? Or does he give a commandment and let men get in the way of accomplishing his work and then he lets his followers off the hook and says "Nevermind"?

Let me see if I can answer the question:

Demand 10% and suggest inheritance money go to the church (billions), use 8% on buildings and maintenance (billions but must give the people something), plunge 2% into the stock market and business investments ( BILLIONS BABY, YEEEE HAAAAWWWW!), then make up something resembling theology or doctrine or whatever (for those who want some religious something, something) and watch the money grow. Rinse and repeat.