Any Mormon prophets, apostle or seventies(sp) theologians?i

[_Joey]

Are there degreed or studied theologians within the official leadership of the LDS Church?

I see there are many business entrepeanuers(sp), legal people, administrators and life long church employees. But are there any actual christian theologians amongst the mgt team?

I dare say they are the only organization "claiming" to be of christian faith that has not one studied, let alone degreed theologian.

Could that be why their primary interests always seem to be around finances and control as opposed to in depth christiam theological study??

Any thoughts?

[_Scottie]

I read something in passing, and I can't remember if it was here on over on MAD. It said something to the effect that Mormonism has no theology, only "doctrine"... and it doesn't even have that.

But I believe you have hit on something very important!! First of all, why is there no training for LDS clergy, and second, why isn't this training a requirement before you can become an apostle for God.

It seems as though apologists would have us believe that the Brethren have no clue what LDS doctrine is. GBH sure seemed to prove this throughout his many interviews. He couldn't even answer some of the most simple questions about the nature of God or the history of the LDS church! Why? Why aren't they properly trained?

[_bcspace]

Are there degreed or studied theologians within the official leadership of the LDS Church?

I see there are many business entrepeanuers(sp), legal people, administrators and life long church employees. But are there any actual christian theologians amongst the mgt team?

I dare say they are the only organization "claiming" to be of christian faith that has not one studied, let alone degreed theologian.

Could that be why their primary interests always seem to be around finances and control as opposed to in depth christiam theological study??

Any thoughts?

We are all theologians. Our young Primary children can run circles around most degreed theologians. All it takes is knowing some verses theologians typically skip or glibly slide under the rug.

[_bcspace]

But I believe you have hit on something very important!! First of all, why is there no training for LDS clergy, and second, why isn't this training a requirement before you can become an apostle for God.

How many theologically trained people did Christ call to be his apostles?

It seems as though apologists would have us believe that the Brethren have no clue what LDS doctrine is. GBH sure seemed to prove this throughout his many interviews. He couldn't even answer some of the most simple questions about the nature of God or the history of the LDS church!

Sounds more like he was developing the answer out loud in decide whether or not to cast pearls before swine.

Why? Why aren't they properly trained?

None is required.

[_Scottie]

We are all theologians. Our young Primary children can run circles around most degreed theologians. All it takes is knowing some verses theologians typically skip or glibly slide under the rug.

If LDS theology could be summed up in a few primary songs, then yes, I'd agree.

Most members on these boards can't even agree what LDS theology consists of, let alone anyone "mastering" them. Most chapel Mormons have no clue what some of the intricacies of Mormon Doctrine consists of.

And, if I can please circumvent the non-approved, editorial article written by a bored housewife as to what constitutes doctrine. Can we leave it out of this, pretty please??

How many theologically trained people did Christ call to be his apostles?

I'm not sure. Do we know? Since Christ was starting a church, there kind of wasn't any theology, right? He created the theology of the Christian religion.

Sounds more like he was developing the answer out loud in decide whether or not to cast pearls before swine.

Good grief!! Is EVERYTHING a pearl, and is EVERYONE swine?? Why do an interview if you are not prepared to discuss your religion before the "swine" that is your audience?

None is required.

Obviously. But don't you think that it might be helpful to obtaining further revelation if they knew what past revelations had come before?

[_bcspace]

We are all theologians. Our young Primary children can run circles around most degreed theologians. All it takes is knowing some verses theologians typically skip or glibly slide under the rug.

If LDS theology could be summed up in a few primary songs, then yes, I'd agree.

God would seem to agree as well...Matthew 21:16

Most members on these boards can't even agree what LDS theology consists of, let alone anyone "mastering" them.

They seem to be more in agreement than anything else. However, all one has to do is look at the clearly defined standard for doctrine the Church has put forth. The only time there is disagreement is when one strays from that. The theology is perfect and consistent. People are not.

Most chapel Mormons have no clue what some of the intricacies of Mormon Doctrine consists of.

Every day brings me closer and closer to the notion that such a distinction does not exist within the Church. There IS a distinction that is generational in that the gaps are filled in differently because of a different understanding of say, science. But that has nothing to do with doctrine.

And, if I can please circumvent the non-approved, editorial article written by a bored housewife as to what constitutes doctrine. Can we leave it out of this, pretty please??

I know of no such document. Of course it's in your best interest that the Church would not have a clear statement on doctrine because all of your arguments go away. Problem is, such a statement exists.

[_ludwigm]

...
Of course it's in your best interest that the Church would not have a clear statement on doctrine because all of your arguments go away. Problem is, such a statement exists.

The bigger problem is, that your pet statement says nothing about what doctrine is. It says where to found, after You studied it in Your whole life plus three days.

- there are said items of "doctrine" which can not be found in that standard works
- not all words of that standard works are doctrine

And that statement is not an official one.
See the Rights and Use Information here , on the same site :
DISCLAIMERS
THE MATERIALS AT THIS SITE AND ANY LINKED SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
(The capitals were used in original text, they are not my highlight.)

I am sorry that You can't understand this.

Ps.
The most telling in this whole stupid doctrine issue, that there is a book, called "Mormon Doctrine", written by an apostle-seer-revelator, by one of the lord's anointed, and that book is not the Mormon doctrine.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting Q, actually, Joey. I can't think of one LDS apostle who has been academically degreed in theology.

[_Pokatator]

...
Of course it's in your best interest that the Church would not have a clear statement on doctrine because all of your arguments go away. Problem is, such a statement exists.

The bigger problem is, that your pet statement says nothing about what doctrine is. It says where to found, after You studied it in Your whole life plus three days.

- there are said items of "doctrine" which can not be found in that standard works
- not all words of that standard works are doctrine

And that statement is not an official one.
See the Rights and Use Information here , on the same site :
DISCLAIMERS
THE MATERIALS AT THIS SITE AND ANY LINKED SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
(The capitals were used in original text, they are not my highlight.)

I am sorry that You can't understand this.

Ps.
The most telling in this whole stupid doctrine issue, that there is a book, called "Mormon Doctrine", written by an apostle-seer-revelator, by one of the lord's anointed, and that book is not the Mormon doctrine.

Enjoyed your post ludwigm. BC?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

According to Ezra Taft Benson, they don't need to have any training. THis is from his 14 fundamentals of following the prophet speech. And does anyone know what the bold part is supposed to mean. It makes no sense.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.