DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

[_Kishkumen]

I don’t blame Tarik for having poor recommendations in this area, being a Mormon and an analytic philosopher is a double whammy: neither group has much use for contemporary theology. I’m actually more impressed that he felt the need to include the area of theology and that is very refreshing.

There is more to the field of theology than what overlaps with philosophy and biblical studies and I’d reckon it is far more useful to the issues facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints today than either philosophy or biblical studies. Too bad they won’t make use of it.

Shows what I know. I would start with Plato.

I agree that LDS folk would do well to learn theology. Honestly I can’t understand why people bring up Blake Ostler other than to be diplomatic. Mormonism still lacks a worthwhile theologian. Until then I guess Ostler has something to say on the subject.

[_Physics Guy]

Isn’t it the only distinctively Mormon item of theology to assert that God is flesh and bone even now, and was once a mere mortal?

This seems to me to make it hard to get started on Mormon theology. The being worshipped by Mormons is not what any other viewpoint would recognize as a conception of God, but only a powerful alien.

So one could do speculative xenobiology on Elohim, but there’s not much detail to work with, and I suspect that the more one got into it the more it would seem like soft science-fiction. Or one could philosophize about the principles of eternal progression, which govern all Mormon Gods. But that wouldn’t really be about God per se, and so might not really fill the gap of Mormon theology.

[_Kishkumen]

Isn’t it the only distinctively Mormon item of theology to assert that God is flesh and bone even now, and was once a mere mortal?

This seems to me to make it hard to get started on Mormon theology. The being worshipped by Mormons is not what any other viewpoint would recognize as a conception of God, but only a powerful alien.

So one could do speculative xenobiology on Elohim, but there’s not much detail to work with, and I suspect that the more one got into it the more it would seem like soft science-fiction. Or one could philosophize about the principles of eternal progression, which govern all Mormon Gods. But that wouldn’t really be about God per se, and so might not really fill the gap of Mormon theology.

Yes, Mormon theology has been called, If I recall correctly, essentially religious anthropology. If I were to rewrite Mormon theology, it would probably be a synthesis of Christian theology, theurgical Neoplatonism, and Joseph Smith. I would toss Brigham Young's ideas out right away.

ETA: Oh, and I would also look to Kabbalah. Note, however, that every element there, including the Kabbalah, owes a lot to Plato.

[_Physics Guy]

If I were to rewrite Mormon theology, it would probably be a synthesis of Christian theology, theurgical Neoplatonism, and Joseph Smith. I would toss Brigham Young's ideas out right away.

ETA: Oh, and I would also look to Kabbalah. Note, however, that every element there, including the Kabbalah, owes a lot to Plato.

Sounds interesting. How hopeful are you that it would be received as genuinely Mormon, though?

[_Kishkumen]

Sounds interesting. How hopeful are you that it would be received as genuinely Mormon, though?

I think it someday, a long time from now, it could be. I am not confident it would be now. What partly gives me hope is new scholarship and the LDS disavowal of the term Mormon. If the LDS Church is no longer Mormon, then what do they care if this kind of theology goes by that moniker? Right?

[_huckelberry]

The real question regarding Mormon apologetics, however, is why they take the shape they do. I think the answer is because Mormon illiteracy about Mormon theology is vertiginous in its depths. Mormons practically don't have a theology, which means they wander into a conversation with Christianity unarmed. It used to be that Mormons just sidestepped the question of systematic theology because that represented the corruption of pure Christianity in later ages. The more we learn about early Christianities, however, the less they look like Joseph Smith's assumptions about a church organization that belong to his own day and age. Christianity always was the philosophies of men mingled with Judaism. John chapter 1.

The Reverend here reminded me of something I saw on Tarik’s blog:

Theology: Here things get a little more difficult, but the best place for Latter-day Saints to start with theology will be Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God. He addresses many of the beginning issues and cites many references at the end. On the traditional Christian end, Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig is also a good place to start. Alvin Plantinga's books Where the Conflict Really Lies, God, Freedom, and Evil, and Knowledge and Christian Belief are also important works. The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, Faith and Reason, and The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne are all must-reads

The only person on this list with a degree in theology is William Lane Craig, but Craig really isn’t known for his work in theology and doesn’t publish much in that way. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne are exclusively philosophers. Collectively what these men publish in the domain of philosophy of religion might be reasonably termed “philosophical theology”. None of them produce theological works and certainly no works that would serve as a proper introduction to the field.

I don’t blame Tarik for having poor recommendations in this area, being a Mormon and an analytic philosopher is a double whammy: neither group has much use for contemporary theology. I’m actually more impressed that he felt the need to include the area of theology and that is very refreshing.

There is more to the field of theology than what overlaps with philosophy and biblical studies and I’d reckon it is far more useful to the issues facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints today than either philosophy or biblical studies. Too bad they won’t make use of it.

No Mormon theology? I am halfway puzzled. How about Sterling Mcmurrin ,"The Theological Foundations of the Mormon religion" It was a bunch of years ago when I read it but I remember finding it thoughtful and very Mormon. Well I realize he held Mormon belief like Kishkumen does but that did not seem to harm the book.

I cannot help but think that there are all sorts of Mormon books that might be called theological. Why not the books by Talamage? For better or worse would not "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce Mckonkie qualify? (I have never read that but it gets mentioned)

Mr Stakonovite, I could not help but wonder what sort of theological thought, questions or study you are thinking of. There are books considering historical theology, philosophical consideration, biblical theology of a wide variety depending on types of Biblical views, experiential, cultural or historical reflection and various combinations of these.I do not suppose you are thinking of Juan Segundo or other Catholic liberation thinkers. How about Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, a good paper weight for pressing fall leaves I found.

[_Gadianton]

This seems to me to make it hard to get started on Mormon theology. The being worshipped by Mormons is not what any other viewpoint would recognize as a conception of God, but only a powerful alien.

exactly right. There was never an option for any of the Mopologists to become serious theologians, at least not LDS theologians. Sure, the apologists could have become academics who comment on Aquinas, but as James Faulconer explained in the Mormon science conference, nothing in traditional theology nor in any form of philosophy that he's aware of has anything to do with the Mormon position on the soul and eternal progression. Mormon prophets agree, that the philosophy DCP imagines he would have mastered is the invention of the Devil.

There still could have been use for such a career. It's an implied kind of apologetics, where becoming a scholar of Aquinas while still remaining Mormon denies the right of critics to question Mormonism. But there's not a lot of bang for the buck for that. It's a lot of work for just a little more credibility.

Well, one thing is for sure, his "training" was pretty much a failure anyway, given the gaping inconsistencies in his arguments against non-theism.

[_Philo Sofee]

I don’t blame Tarik for having poor recommendations in this area, being a Mormon and an analytic philosopher is a double whammy: neither group has much use for contemporary theology. I’m actually more impressed that he felt the need to include the area of theology and that is very refreshing.

There is more to the field of theology than what overlaps with philosophy and biblical studies and I’d reckon it is far more useful to the issues facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints today than either philosophy or biblical studies. Too bad they won’t make use of it.

Shows what I know. I would start with Plato.

I agree that LDS folk would do well to learn theology. Honestly I can’t understand why people bring up Blake Ostler other than to be diplomatic. Mormonism still lacks a worthwhile theologian. Until then I guess Ostler has something to say on the subject.

He just shows how all others' philosophy of God are wrong, meaning they differ from the Mormon view. I mean, it's basic apologetics. He interprets things differently than they, so they are wrong, because they differ from his take on things. Honestly, it's all just a big woop. Who actually cares?

[_Philo Sofee]

Kishkumen
ETA: Oh, and I would also look to Kabbalah. Note, however, that every element there, including the Kabbalah, owes a lot to Plato.

Leonora Leet demonstated that it is the other way around, for what its worth.......

[_MrStakhanovite]

I cannot help but think that there are all sorts of Mormon books that might be called theological.

Well in a certain respect, anyone with opinions and beliefs about God has a theology. And anyone who writes about God is writing a theological work. Same thing can be said for philosophy or science as well, but is it getting done well?

For Mormons I would think the overwhelming response is “absolutely not”. Contemporary theology isn’t a purely intellectual activity like the disciplines of philosophy, religious studies, biblical studies, etc, etc. There are large components to it that are geared towards pastoral applications and serving others in the community in a very real and intimate sense. Reading the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament in their original languages is great, familiarity with scholastic philosophy is helpful too, but how to apply those subjects to someone in your spiritual care who just lost a parent? Not easy and requires a very different track of study.

Because Mormons home grow their own eccleastical leaders and eschew traditional pastoral education, none of the collected wisdom of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, about how to maintain the wellbeing of a religious community ever even gets introduced.

That is why Mormons get half baked stuff like ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness’ and ‘Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith’ which only draw ridicule from the outside and generate genuine anguish and embarrassment within. The worst part? There are generally no viable alternatives.

That is also why this throwaway line from Daniel is so ironic and depressing:

It seemed to me a pastoral duty.

In all seriousness, guys like Peterson, Midgely, and Gee could only be less suited for “pastoral duty” if they were incarcerated.

Mr Stakonovite, I could not help but wonder what sort of theological thought, questions or study you are thinking of. There are books considering historical theology, philosophical consideration, biblical theology of a wide variety depending on types of Biblical views, experiential, cultural or historical reflection and various combinations of these.I do not suppose you are thinking of Juan Segundo or other Catholic liberation thinkers. How about Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, a good paper weight for pressing fall leaves I found.

Good theology must be paired with sound scholarship in my opinion and that can come from any religious tradition. Because I’ve spent far more time studying historical Judaism and rabbinic works, my initial thoughts were oriented towards that realm. I could say quite a bit about what a Rav Kook could do for Mormonism or a careful study of Moshe ben Maimon’s letter to the Jews in Yemen facing persecution might teach Gee something about being a relatable human.

Yet from your question I get the hint that you’d like to see some contemporary names from Christianity. Diogenes Allen is a great segway for the shift from philosophy to theology; how they are related and inform one another, but are different. Wolfhart Pannenburg’s work on the role of history in theology is another option. F.F. Bruce is a model on how one takes biblical scholarship and turn it into something meaningful for a general reader. W. Clark Gilpin over that the University of Chicago is another honorable mention, his ‘Preface to Theology’ would go a long way in explaining the role of modern theology to skeptical Mormons.