New Kish Series: Kish critiques . . .

[Kishkumen]

It's a legacy of that frontier "we'll do it ourselves" spirit. I love that spirit. But I think it's been a bit of a disaster for LDS theology. You end up with a situation where people like Robert Boylan are doing the heavy lifting trying to make sense of nonsense. I mean come on!

I'd love to see some really serious LDS theologians come out of this mess.

Me too! That would be a refreshing change. I don’t know how much authority should be given to their words, but it would be nice to have a more intellectually stimulating discussion of this kind of thing by people who know how to be positive and friendly, not punitive and insulting.

[Dr. Shades]

I'd love to see some really serious LDS theologians come out of this mess.

If the prophets and apostles aren't theologians, then something is seriously wrong with their religion.

[Kishkumen]

If the prophets and apostles aren't theologians, then something is seriously wrong with their religion.

Why’s that, Shades?

[Dr. Shades]

If the prophets and apostles aren't theologians, then something is seriously wrong with their religion.

Why’s that, Shades?

Shouldn't those who regularly communicate with God have the most accurate insight into the nature of God?

[Fence Sitter]

Why’s that, Shades?

Shouldn't those who regularly communicate with God have the most accurate insight into the nature of God?

Not necessarily, especially if God chooses to remain hidden. Regular communication with God doesn’t automatically make someone an expert in theology. For example, I have a close friend who is a physicist, but despite our frequent conversations, it hasn’t made me a physicist. Similarly, theological understanding requires study, reflection, and the ability to critically engage with religious texts and teachings, beyond personal experiences, something LDS leaders are afraid and unable to do. The last LDS leader who could be called a theologian was probably McConkie, and we all know how that turned out.

[Gadianton]

Regular communication with God doesn’t automatically make someone an expert in theology. For example, I have a close friend who is a physicist, but despite our frequent conversations, it hasn’t made me a physicist

I agree with Shades on this one. Knowing about God doesn't need to equate to theology. Theology is the BS that people do in absence of revelation, and it requires technical skills. Being friends with a physicist shouldn't make you better at physics unless you have the skills to master the subject. Talking with God requires no talent, other than to "be humble," and carry the message that you were told. Presumably, if God is talking to a person, the intent is to bypass the nonsense of experts and put forward plain truths, and so yes, the person talking to God should know a great deal about God.

It was as simple for Joseph Smith to tell the world the truths of God, such as regarding his physical body, as it is for anyone else to talk about their trip to the grocery store.

[Chap]

Theology is the BS that people do in absence of revelation, and it requires technical skills.

Hmm. That characterisation seems to me to come naturally from someone with Mormon cultural origins. From other (dare one say mainstream?) Abrahamic traditions, maybe not so much.

Even the act of distinguishing between what can be known by reason and what can be known by revelation is an exercise in theology. See for instance that seminal work by Joseph Butler (1692-1752), The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature.. Contrary to the impression given by the title, it is a very readable book.

The prefatory matter contains this, of which the second paragraph is particularly striking:

IF the reader should meet here with any thing which he had not before attended to, it will not be in the observations upon the constitution and course of nature, these being all obvious; but in the application of them: in which, though there is nothing but what appears to me of some real weight, and therefore of great importance; yet he will observe several things, which will appear to him of very little, if he can think things to be of little importance, which are of any real weight at all, upon such a subject as religion. However, the proper force of the following Treatise lies in the whole general analogy considered together.

It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it, as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world. On the contrary, thus much, at least, will be here found, not taken for granted, but proved, that any reasonable man, who will thoroughly consider the matter, may be as much assured, as he is of his own being, that it is not, however, so clear a case, that there is nothing in it. There is, I think, strong evidence of its truth; but it is certain no one can, upon principles of reason, be satisfied of the contrary. And the practical consequence to be drawn from this is not attended to by every one who is concerned in it.

[Kishkumen]

Shouldn't those who regularly communicate with God have the most accurate insight into the nature of God?

There is part of it--a large part of it--that is experiential and not so much just something one can express. I think there is an ineffable aspect to it, and I am not sure that it is necessary for most people to bother with intensive theological thought.

[Kishkumen]

Hmm. That characterisation seems to me to come naturally from someone with Mormon cultural origins. From other (dare one say mainstream?) Abrahamic traditions, maybe not so much.

Even the act of distinguishing between what can be known by reason and what can be known by revelation is an exercise in theology. See for instance that seminal work by Joseph Butler (1692-1752), The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature.. Contrary to the impression given by the title, it is a very readable book.

The prefatory matter contains this, of which the second paragraph is particularly striking:

IF the reader should meet here with any thing which he had not before attended to, it will not be in the observations upon the constitution and course of nature, these being all obvious; but in the application of them: in which, though there is nothing but what appears to me of some real weight, and therefore of great importance; yet he will observe several things, which will appear to him of very little, if he can think things to be of little importance, which are of any real weight at all, upon such a subject as religion. However, the proper force of the following Treatise lies in the whole general analogy considered together.

It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it, as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world. On the contrary, thus much, at least, will be here found, not taken for granted, but proved, that any reasonable man, who will thoroughly consider the matter, may be as much assured, as he is of his own being, that it is not, however, so clear a case, that there is nothing in it. There is, I think, strong evidence of its truth; but it is certain no one can, upon principles of reason, be satisfied of the contrary. And the practical consequence to be drawn from this is not attended to by every one who is concerned in it.

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing this, Chap.

[Fence Sitter]

Regular communication with God doesn’t automatically make someone an expert in theology. For example, I have a close friend who is a physicist, but despite our frequent conversations, it hasn’t made me a physicist

I agree with Shades on this one. Knowing about God doesn't need to equate to theology. Theology is the BS that people do in absence of revelation, and it requires technical skills. Being friends with a physicist shouldn't make you better at physics unless you have the skills to master the subject. Talking with God requires no talent, other than to "be humble," and carry the message that you were told. Presumably, if God is talking to a person, the intent is to bypass the nonsense of experts and put forward plain truths, and so yes, the person talking to God should know a great deal about God.

It was as simple for Joseph Smith to tell the world the truths of God, such as regarding his physical body, as it is for anyone else to talk about their trip to the grocery store.

Maybe we should define what we mean by theology. For me, it is an intellectual exercise put forth that forms the underpinnings of a religion. Asserting what God says by ipse dixit degree isn't theology. And, frankly, LDS authorities, both current and past, know very little about God's physical body other than to assert he has one similar to ours but divine. What that actually means hasn't ever been clearly defined. There is a reason McMurrin's book, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion is only 150 pages long. There isn't a well-defined theology behind Mormonism, nor will there be. Any theological claim can be contradicted by prophetic decree so spending time creating some sort of codified theology is a waste of time. When we want to know what we believe, it's "Follow the Prophet" all the way down.