Daniel Peterson and D&C 131.

[huckelberry]

The above passage is an unambiguous metaphysical declaration and (to some) a divine revelation that the immaterial is non-existent and that everything on a fundamental level is comprised of matter.

Daniel Peterson has made numerous and explicit denials of materialism.

What possible strategies could Daniel Peterson use to bring his metaphysics in accordance with the revealed truth from God in D&C 131?

This is one area where Joseph Smith actually got a bullseye - ancient writers like Paul also had the same concept that Joseph Smith described, contra to DC Peterson's beliefs.

PseudoPaul, I am not thinking or remembering how Paul addressed this particular little matter. (or is direct explanation immaterial when overall assumptions can stand?)

[DrStakhanovite]

There have been plenty of smart Mormons over the decades, but they knew better than to publicly articulate their beliefs in a book or lecture series. That type of thinking for yourself is forbidden. Can't have people intruding on the "stewardship" of the General Authorities. But with the growth of Mormon Studies as an academic discipline outside of Mormon-controlled universities, the long-running effort to censor dissenters just doesn't work anymore. And on the opposite side, the growth of online communities has made it so that the fundamentalist Mormons can also work to support each other.

In my opinion, there are two major factors responsible for this: eschewing of traditional clergy and a rigid top down hierarchy.

For a variety of reasons, Mormons never really instituted a meaningful version of their own seminaries where people functioning as clergy get formally trained. Instead, people are groomed for leadership as they climb the ladder of ecclastical responsibilities, like how a business might decide to organically develop and promote managers from within instead of looking outside the organization.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this strategy, but one unfortunate effect is that the skills and background to do really good theology (systematic or pastoral) get neglected in favor of skills and backgrounds amenable to administration. Now there is nothing wrong with having eccesastical authorities being skilled accountants, lawyers, and businessmen, they are probably much better keeping the lights on and the ledger balanced than some philologist or historical theologian. The problem is that overtime there becomes such an unbalance that Church life becomes indistinguishable from business meetings and seminars.

Then you take into account that the Church itself is organized like a franchise where every site is operated in a nearly identical fashion, it is pretty much impossible for members who happen to be inclined towards philosophy and theology to ever utilize their interests in their own religious community. There is a pretty strict “quality assurance” in place that not only strictly delegates the material to be taught, but there is also a culture on *how* that material is to be taught. Going to church as Mormon is pretty much a universal experience, like eating McDonalds in Paris, Hong Kong, and San Francisco.

I think this is why Mopologists always come across as bitter, the skills that make someone a good apologist are not really recognized by their own religious community as being all that desirable. At best, they are a sideshow, a stuffy academic who gets shuffled on stage to say that the Book of Abraham is indeed an ancient scripture and that has been confirmed by the diligent application of the latest scholarship.

[DrStakhanovite]

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others.

General Authorities are educated.

I think there is a difference between being credentialed and being educated. There is also the expectation that those who are credentialed are also educated, but the longer you go through life you keep encountering exceptions.

[Alphus and Omegus]

There have been plenty of smart Mormons over the decades, but they knew better than to publicly articulate their beliefs in a book or lecture series. That type of thinking for yourself is forbidden. Can't have people intruding on the "stewardship" of the General Authorities. But with the growth of Mormon Studies as an academic discipline outside of Mormon-controlled universities, the long-running effort to censor dissenters just doesn't work anymore. And on the opposite side, the growth of online communities has made it so that the fundamentalist Mormons can also work to support each other.

In my opinion, there are two major factors responsible for this: eschewing of traditional clergy and a rigid top down hierarchy.

For a variety of reasons, Mormons never really instituted a meaningful version of their own seminaries where people functioning as clergy get formally trained. Instead, people are groomed for leadership as they climb the ladder of ecclesiastical responsibilities, like how a business might decide to organically develop and promote managers from within instead of looking outside the organization.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this strategy, but one unfortunate effect is that the skills and background to do really good theology (systematic or pastoral) get neglected in favor of skills and backgrounds amenable to administration. Now there is nothing wrong with having ecclesiastical authorities being skilled accountants, lawyers, and businessmen, they are probably much better keeping the lights on and the ledger balanced than some philologist or historical theologian. The problem is that overtime there becomes such an unbalance that Church life becomes indistinguishable from business meetings and seminars.

Then you take into account that the Church itself is organized like a franchise where every site is operated in a nearly identical fashion, it is pretty much impossible for members who happen to be inclined towards philosophy and theology to ever utilize their interests in their own religious community. There is a pretty strict “quality assurance” in place that not only strictly delegates the material to be taught, but there is also a culture on *how* that material is to be taught. Going to church as Mormon is pretty much a universal experience, like eating McDonalds in Paris, Hong Kong, and San Francisco.

I think this is why Mopologists always come across as bitter, the skills that make someone a good apologist are not really recognized by their own religious community as being all that desirable. At best, they are a sideshow, a stuffy academic who gets shuffled on stage to say that the Book of Abraham is indeed an ancient scripture and that has been confirmed by the diligent application of the latest scholarship.

Mopologists are nothing more than props to the average member. Their explanations, their papers, and such are not actually read or considered by the average Mormon. All that matters is that they exist. They could be autogenerated nonsense and it would not matter. "This smart person says the Book of Mormbraham is real, therefore it is."

But at the same time, while the institutional structures make it basically impossible for more than a handful of people to pursue a professional LDS life of the mind, it is also the case that the church deliberately targets people who think for themselves in an unofficial capacity. People who want to research and worship Heavenly Mother. People who want a theology that doesn't fear LGBTQ people, etc.

Mormonism has the ingredients to authentically justify a much more inclusive theology, but the people who want to expand it have been censored and canceled within Mormonism for more than a century. They still are.

[Philo Sofee]

There have been plenty of smart Mormons over the decades, but they knew better than to publicly articulate their beliefs in a book or lecture series. That type of thinking for yourself is forbidden. Can't have people intruding on the "stewardship" of the General Authorities. But with the growth of Mormon Studies as an academic discipline outside of Mormon-controlled universities, the long-running effort to censor dissenters just doesn't work anymore. And on the opposite side, the growth of online communities has made it so that the fundamentalist Mormons can also work to support each other.

In my opinion, there are two major factors responsible for this: eschewing of traditional clergy and a rigid top down hierarchy.

For a variety of reasons, Mormons never really instituted a meaningful version of their own seminaries where people functioning as clergy get formally trained. Instead, people are groomed for leadership as they climb the ladder of ecclastical responsibilities, like how a business might decide to organically develop and promote managers from within instead of looking outside the organization.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this strategy, but one unfortunate effect is that the skills and background to do really good theology (systematic or pastoral) get neglected in favor of skills and backgrounds amenable to administration. Now there is nothing wrong with having eccesastical authorities being skilled accountants, lawyers, and businessmen, they are probably much better keeping the lights on and the ledger balanced than some philologist or historical theologian. The problem is that overtime there becomes such an unbalance that Church life becomes indistinguishable from business meetings and seminars.

Then you take into account that the Church itself is organized like a franchise where every site is operated in a nearly identical fashion, it is pretty much impossible for members who happen to be inclined towards philosophy and theology to ever utilize their interests in their own religious community. There is a pretty strict “quality assurance” in place that not only strictly delegates the material to be taught, but there is also a culture on *how* that material is to be taught. Going to church as Mormon is pretty much a universal experience, like eating McDonalds in Paris, Hong Kong, and San Francisco.

I think this is why Mopologists always come across as bitter, the skills that make someone a good apologist are not really recognized by their own religious community as being all that desirable. At best, they are a sideshow, a stuffy academic who gets shuffled on stage to say that the Book of Abraham is indeed an ancient scripture and that has been confirmed by the diligent application of the latest scholarship.

Heh, I just can't help it man, you always have such fascinating insights and wide themes with your knowledge. I know, I know, shut up and contribute something here...
I think your idea of how the church operates to getting ecclesiastical involvement from its members without the training is spot on. The way you put it was well worded. And, unfortunately, you are correct in that the church culture of *how* to teach their materials is one of the fundamental things that has set my knowledge and understanding so far back, I have more or less resigned myself to never being able to catch up. If I dwell on it much I get a little flustered and angry, so I just chock it up to experience at this point. Thanks for sharing these observations and comments Stak.

[MG 2.0]

Start here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/sea ... rue&page=1

Good reading!

No, that's a search on the lds site for "weak things of the world."

My question is about YOUR statement:

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

And my response was the explanation/response to your question. You may not like the ramifications because it may not fit your worldview of how things ought to work, but nonetheless there you go.

I think any one of the apostles and prophets would, if you sat down and talked with them Mano to Mano, would say that they feel inadequate and a sense of humility in their positions as prophets, seers, and revelators.

At the pulpit I believe that they are ‘lifted up’ beyond their natural abilities to deliver their messages. They are men. They have their frailties and weaknesses of the flesh.

Throughout history God has worked with humble/weak men. That doesn’t mean they were wimps however. Look at the apostle Peter for example. Or Brigham Young.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No, that's a search on the lds site for "weak things of the world."

My question is about YOUR statement:

And my response was the explanation/response to your question. You may not like the ramifications because it may not fit your worldview of how things ought to work, but nonetheless there you go.

I think any one of the apostles and prophets would, if you sat down and talked with them Mano to Mano, would say that they feel inadequate and a sense of humility in their positions as prophets, seers, and revelators.

At the pulpit I believe that they are ‘lifted up’ beyond their natural abilities to deliver their messages. They are men. They have their frailties and weaknesses of the flesh.

Throughout history God has worked with humble/weak men. That doesn’t mean they were wimps however. Look at the apostle Peter for example. Or Brigham Young.

Regards,
MG

That's in no way answer to this very specific question about your very specific comment:

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others. We would do well to remember that God calls on the weak...

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

Why am I not surprised.

[MG 2.0]

And my response was the explanation/response to your question. You may not like the ramifications because it may not fit your worldview of how things ought to work, but nonetheless there you go.

I think any one of the apostles and prophets would, if you sat down and talked with them Mano to Mano, would say that they feel inadequate and a sense of humility in their positions as prophets, seers, and revelators.

At the pulpit I believe that they are ‘lifted up’ beyond their natural abilities to deliver their messages. They are men. They have their frailties and weaknesses of the flesh.

Throughout history God has worked with humble/weak men. That doesn’t mean they were wimps however. Look at the apostle Peter for example. Or Brigham Young.

Regards,
MG

That's in no way answer to this very specific question about your very specific comment:

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

Why am I not surprised.

Done spending time with you on this stream of thought.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That's in no way answer to this very specific question about your very specific comment:

Why am I not surprised.

Done spending time with you on this stream of thought.

Regards,
MG

way ahead of you. That's what happens when you make statements you can't support.

[MG 2.0]

Done spending time with you on this stream of thought.

Regards,
MG

way ahead of you. That's what happens when you make statements you can't support.

This is what happens when you dance around in circles with your eyes closed.

Regards,
MG