Doctrine . . . Not [LDS Atheology]

Mormonism is essentially a sacramental religion, defined by ordinance and ritual more than doctrine or belief. Any effort to define “Mormon doctrine” is fraught with difficulty and virtually certain of error, although one might venture that the “belief” portion of the temple recommend interview defines doctrine.^[1] As Edward Kimball says, “Church history shows that General Authorities frequently declare, clarify, refine, and qualify interpretations of doctrine, but these statements generally constitute only informed opinion.”^[2]

On the other hand, there are numerous statements, writings and beliefs that have been put forward as doctrine, or believed as doctrine, at one time or by some people, that we can be fairly confident are not doctrine. We have somewhat more confidence about what is not doctrine than what is.

Only half-jokingly, one might start with the obvious-to-most-adult-Mormons statement that your high school seminary teacher was not a reliable source of doctrine.

So what do we know is not doctrine? Here is a short collection of ideas about “doctrines” we might reject, meant to invite comment and addendum. These are presented in no particular order, although the inspiration for this investigation is chapter 11 of Lengthen Your Stride, which depicts Spencer W. Kimball’s contributions to the discussion of doctrine and even more “not” doctrine.

A. Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.^[3]

B. Despite numerous requests (and positions stated or implied in the publications noted in A above), the Church has never taken a definitive position on the matter of organic evolution.

C. “We denounce [the Adam-God Theory] and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”^[4]

D. Other churches are not all wrong. “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”^[5]

E. References to blood atonement (leaving aside the atonement of Christ), if understood as applying to modern circumstances, ‘do not . . . represent the official stand of the Church.’^[6]

F. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” (including acceptance of organic evolution, a belief that God progresses in knowledge, and the idea that progression from kingdom to kingdom in the afterlife is possible) were Elder McConkie’s personal views and not doctrine.^[7]

G. The Joseph Smith Translation is “not the official Bible of the Church.” It is “interesting,” a “fruitful source,” and an “invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding.”^[8]

H. Church policy set in 1967 allowing only Melchizedek or Aaronic Priesthood holders to pray in sacrament meetings had no scriptural basis and should be abandoned.^[9]

I. The practice of polygamy after 1890 is not in accord with the teachings of the Church.^[10]

K. There is no authoritative or doctrinal explanation why the ordination of Black men was not allowed before 1978.

You are employing philosophical theology.

It goes beyond ironic to the point of absurdity to use philosophical theology in the very process of insisting that philosophical theology "is not the only way of discovering the truth, or even the best way" and that "Latter-day Saints do not engage much [in its use]"

Perhaps we are talking about different things. By philosophical theology I had in mind the description offered by Alvin Plantinga: "a matter of thinking about the central doctrines of the Christian faith from a philosophical perspective; it is a matter of employing the resources of philosophy to deepen our grasp and understanding of them."

I lack the education in philosophy and theology to engage in philosophical theology. Relatively few Latter-day Saints have such training.

In fact, if you look at the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, you will find none who has formal education as a theologian or philosopher. None worked professionally as a theologian or philosopher before being called to his present position. (By my count, the top leadership includes five businessmen, two former professors of Business, three lawyers, two educational administrators, a surgeon, a nuclear engineer, and a pilot.)

Obviously, formal training in theology is not required to serve in the LDS Church, even at the highest levels. No doubt that is one reason Mormonism has been described as "atheological."

You are employing philosophical theology. It goes beyond ironic to the point of absurdity to use philosophical theology in the very process of insisting that philosophical theology "is not the only way of discovering the truth, or even the best way" and that "Latter-day Saints do not engage much [in its use]" [Delacoert]

By philosophical theology I had in mind the description offered by Alvin Plantinga: "a matter of thinking about the central doctrines of the Christian faith from a philosophical perspective; it is a matter of employing the resources of philosophy to deepen our grasp and understanding of them." [Logophile]

I concur with Delacoert. Logo, when you delegate something to someone, as Lds have done (Lds just don't delegate philosophical theology to its present Quorum of 12, as you tried to cop out with; but it delegates its philosophical theology to whoever established those precedents now followed within the Lds church).

Illustration: You're working for a boss who is untrained in the key policies of your job -- especially the "why" those policies were put in place to begin with. If I questioned you on those policies, it would be a "copout" to say, "Well, my boss wasn't privvy to those policies when they were put in place. So let's not even go there to the philosophy of those policies. All I know is we don't practice 'traditional' corporate philosophies, so our philosophy is not to go after the vain and empty policies of other companies. That's our philosophy. But we don't philosophize about it. 'Cause my boss and his associates weren't around when that philosophy was developed. And 'I lack the education in' corporate 'philosophy...to engage in philosophical' policy discussion. 'Relatively few' employees 'have such training.'"

That, my friend, is a copout. You do as a people have a philosophical theology. If you have elected to remain "untrained," then you are stuck to buying into Joseph Smith's (& other past Lds prophets') philosophical theology. His -- and theirs -- becomes yours.

Example 1: By virtue of Smith, you reject Hebrews 11:3: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Therefore, Mormons wind up embracing a similar philosophical theology to that of Greek and Roman mythology -- both of which held that creation was formed out of that which already existed. Matter was eternal. And that, too, was Smith's philosophy. Matter was eternal. He said in D&C 93:33, "The elements are eternal..."

Greek and Roman mythology is not a Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is ex-nihilo: God spoke into existence all there is out of nothing. He is the Source. Matter is not co-equal or co-eternal with God.

Example 2: Joseph Smith decided to misrepresent Christianity and poorly attempted to "philosophize" about the Christian God. Here: "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization...All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster." (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476 1844)

Never mind that all the following Lds "standard works" passages teach what Smith called a "strange God anyhow": See these trinitarian passages -- 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; Alma 11:26-29,44; Mormon 7:7: Ether 3:14-20; D&C 20:28; 35:2; and former standard works, Book of Commandments, 2nd lecture, v. 2.

My point, though, is that Smith elected to first "philosophize" that God is purely physical -- going against John 4:23-24 that God is Spirit -- and then once having gone out on a ledge of conjecture rooted to the mere physical, he was "stuck" with not having a God who could be so interconnected Spiritually that he wound up hilosphically measuring God in size, making God out to be some 'Godzilla' ['Zilla, not making God out to be in your image! :)]

Example 3: The reason why I believe Lds apostles like Bruce McConkie preached against a philosophy of seeking a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (BYU devotion, 1982) is because to Joseph Smith, a philosophy of "principles" and gaining a knowledge of what he came up with as "the THINGS of God" outweighed any direct relationship with God himself:

"If you wish to go where God is, you must...possess the principles which God possesses...The Church...needs revelation to assists us, and give us knowledge of the things of God." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 216-217)

To Smith, impersonal knowledge about what he deemed as "godly" things trumped relating to God Himself. We see this in the earlier quote above, where he referred to the 'sectarian God' as an "organization." I mean, who do that? Who would call the way the Son and the Spirit relates to the Father and each other as an impersonal "organization" (Smith would, and did...constantly)

Oh sure, Smith talked about relating to the Father and prayer. But it was always submerged to talking about his fave word: "principles." Principles are often impersonal; knowledge can be treated impersonally.

But our God is more "into" being personally known -- relationship-wise -- than simply racking up impersonal principle THINGS reputed by a fly-by-night philosophical theologian like Smith was...one who could speak "trinitarian formulas" into the Book of Mormon in 1830 & the D&C in 1830, and by 1844 conclude what a "strange" thought that is!

And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

There is a HUGE (eternal life & death separation) difference between knowing some THINGS about God (or thinking you do) -- versus directly KNOWING HIM!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

^[1]	^{In modern form the belief questions are: “(1) Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? (2) Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? (3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? (4) Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?” These four questions are, of course, not wholly self-defining and lend themselves to a number of interpretations.}
^[2]	Lengthen Your Stride, The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, by Edward Kimball (Deseret Book 2005), at page 95.
^[3]	Letters and journal entries from President David O. McKay in 1959 and 1960, among other sources.
^[4]	Spencer W. Kimball at October General Conference in 1976.
^[5]	Statement by the First Presidency on February 15, 1978.
^[6]	Bruce R. McConkie, in 1977, responding to a question at the request of the First Presidency.
^[7]	Lengthen Your Stride at page 101 and clarification in the version published in 1980 BYU Speeches of the Year, changing “we” to “I” and saying “my reasoning causes me to conclude.”
^[8]	Quotes from the dictionary included in the LDS edition of the Bible.
^[9]	Priesthood Bulletin 3, no. 3 (July/August 1967).
^[10]	Official Declaration 1.
^[11]	Official Declaration 2.
^[12]	General Handbook of Instructions, which describes certain exceptions where abortion could be the better choice.
^[13]	Not included in the 1979 and 1981 editions of the standard works. Ed Kimball notes in Lengthen Your Stride that inclusion was proposed at that time but not approved, and that “Several studies had recently concluded that Sidney Rigdon was the principal author of the lectures.”