Does FP/12 have a current theologian?

[_Kishkumen]

Sure they were theologians. Not systematic theologians, but theologians all the same.

[_Philo Sofee]

Yahoo Bot
But, the Church does, I believe, employ exegetes.

I would correct this egregious error with a more correct assessment of eisegetes.......

[_Fence Sitter]

What is the point of a theologian when you claim have a guy who talks directly to God and can, as BRM found out, contradict any scriptural interpretation?

Ironically a church that claims a restoration of all things, isn't interested much interested in delving into exactly what it has restored.

[_Markk]

I just bought Bendar's new book...called "Act in Doctrine"...just out of curiosity as to if it touches on the deeper doctrines. I have been discussing th eplan of salvation with some TBM's, and I am amazed how all over the place they are. I typical use JFS, BRM, Hunter, and other's that actually taught LDS doctrine.

I will give a brief review after I read it.

[_sock puppet]

Ironically a church that claims a restoration of all things, isn't interested much interested in delving into exactly what it has restored.

Three words: pay, lay, ale.

[_RockSlider]

You seem to have missed the boat sock. It's only us old baby boomers that would still look to/for orthodoxy and theology in current Mormonism.

Postmodernism is the theology for the millinials and those to follow them. See the likes of the Give s for your modern day theologians

[_sock puppet]

You seem to have missed the boat sock. It's only us old baby boomers that would still look to/for orthodoxy and theology in current Mormonism.

Postmodernism is the theology for the millinials and those to follow them. See the likes of the Give s for your modern day theologians

Today, its just the golden Moronis and McDumb-it-Down. Unfortunately, no Happy Meals.

[_grindael]

The concept of a "theology" is somewhat foreign to Mormon doctrine and Elder McConkie and Pres. Smith did not claim to be theologians. Rather, they were scriptorians.

Interesting, but what, really is a "scriptorian"? Well, I went to Yahoo and found this...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 527AAxN6u6

[_Philo Sofee]

I just bought Bendar's new book...called "Act in Doctrine"...just out of curiosity as to if it touches on the deeper doctrines. I have been discussing th eplan of salvation with some TBM's, and I am amazed how all over the place they are. I typical use JFS, BRM, Hunter, and other's that actually taught LDS doctrine.

I will give a brief review after I read it.

FIRST they have to define "doctrine" and then describe how to act in it...... act in doctrine? What like the doctrine is God lives. So how do I act in that?! Jesus is the Christ. O.K., what's to act in? Yes, let me know what the book says, I am mildly curious now. I think all they do these days is give catchy titles to sell books, but what do I know?

[_Markk]

[
FIRST they have to define "doctrine" and then describe how to act in it...... act in doctrine? What like the doctrine is God lives. So how do I act in that?! Jesus is the Christ. O.K., what's to act in? Yes, let me know what the book says, I am mildly curious now. I think all they do these days is give catchy titles to sell books, but what do I know?

It is a disappointment, although I expected it...a waste of 12 bucks. It is basically a series of quotes from past GA and very carefully chosen words not getting past the talking points.

From the book...

" An experience I had while participating in a priesthood leadership meeting illustrates the importance of inviting a learner to act—thereby enabling truth to penetrate into the heart. Several other General Authorities and I were assigned to teach a large group of brethren about the doctrine of the priesthood and correct principles related to their callings and duties. A portion of the meeting was used to invite and respond to questions from the participants about the topics that had been addressed. I was assigned to conduct the question-and-answer portion of the meeting. One brother stood and asked this simple and straightforward question, “Elder Bednar, is it permissible to eat pork?” I responded responded by asking several questions that helped me to learn about his recent baptism and his experience as the full-time missionaries had taught him. I also asked him if he was familiar with the Doctrine and Covenants. The man indicated that he knew the Doctrine and Covenants was a book of scripture but he had not yet read it. I suggested he would find the answer to his question in section eighty-nine of the Doctrine and Covenants and invited him to read that revelation at a later time. Before I could solicit another question, this good brother again asked, “Elder Bednar, is it permissible to eat pork?” I promised the man that he would find his answer in section eighty-nine and started to call on another brother to ask a question. In a loud voice, the man exclaimed, “Elder Bednar, your answer is unacceptable. I simply want you to tell me if it is permissible to eat pork!” The tone of his voice and the tension in the room suggested that this particular episode might not have a happy conclusion. I once again invited the brother to act and find his answer by reading and studying section eighty-nine. He once again requested that I answer his question. I finally said, “Dear brother, you have asked the same question several times, and I have given the same answer several times. Let’s call it a draw. I do not think your question will change, and I am quite sure my answer will not change. Please read section eighty-nine of the Doctrine and Covenants so you can find for yourself the answer you need.” Our exchange ended with the man having a disgusted and most unpleasant look on his face. And I wondered if I had mishandled the answering of his question and caused him unnecessary exasperation. The next morning as I walked into the Church building where a large, multistake conference was to be held and from which the proceedings would be broadcast to many other congregations, I was approached by a Church media services employee. He excitedly indicated that he had a message for me from the man who had asked the question about eating pork in the priesthood leadership meeting. I must confess that I initially thought, Oh no, the man wants me to know that I offended him and he is not coming back to church ever again. Instead, I was given the following report: “Tell Elder Bednar I got my answer. Please tell Elder Bednar that I got my answer. I read section eighty-nine—and I got my answer!” Please notice that the man did not say, “I got an answer,” or “I got the answer.” Rather, he exclaimed, “I got my answer.” His statement revealed an element of discovery and a personal ownership that truly are significant. I have observed a common characteristic among the teachers who have had the greatest influence in my life. They have required and helped me to seek learning by faith. They refused to give me easy answers to questions. In fact, they usually did not give me any answers at all. Rather, they pointed the way and helped me take the steps to find my own answers. I certainly did not always appreciate this approach, but experience has enabled me to understand that an answer given by another person usually is not remembered for very long, if at all. But an answer we discover or obtain through the exercise of faith is typically retained for a lifetime. The most important learnings of life are caught—not taught..."

Bednar, David A.. Act in Doctrine (Kindle Locations 1574-1605). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

Like this example, Bendar is not real clear in any deep doctrine. A lot of verses and quotes from scripture and other GA...but nothing deep, and in my opinion, nothing more that a GC talk and touching on what I would call "talking point teaching," feeding the testimony and starving the mind in regards to substance. It is nothing like Gospel through the Ages, or Doctrines of Salvation.

Bednar did not specifically address the mans question...Instead he pointed him to the WoW, which does not address pork specifically, and then reads that meat is to be used sparingly...? If this was a investigator, convert, or I suppose even a long time member...how is he suppose to interpret the WoW in light of his question? How is this guy, true to your question Kerry, suppose to Act in doctrine when the GA can't rightly define a fair question from a wide open teaching?

He could have at least said...hey numnuts, have you ever been to a LDS pot luck, go home and have a ham and bacon sandwich, we don't really follow the WoW strictly unless it is about coffee, tobacco, and alcohol.