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!
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. . . .
I did not say the leaders of the LDS Church are "untrained in the key policies" of their jobs or mine. What I wrote was, "formal training in theology is not required to serve in the LDS Church, even at the highest levels."
That is not a "cop out" but a statement of fact. So far as I can tell from their official biographies, none of the top 15 leaders of the LDS Church claims to hold an academic degree in theology or philosophy.
Can we at least agree on that point? If not, there is no point in going any further.