The following was an old attempt of mine to establish the beginnings of a formal theology for Mormonism. I lost interest after a while for various reasons, but since the topic of Mormon Theology (specifically the lack thereof) came up the other day, I thought it would be interesting to share and see what critiques you have for it. Plus this is a good way to introduce myself on this forum as one who thinks way too much.
I recognize that the Lectures on Faith, certain sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the infamous King Follet Discourse constitute the origin of many of the particular beliefs about God that Mormons have. Other more recent attempts at Theology have been made such as in Blake Ostler’s ‘Monarchical Monotheism’ theory. Unfortunately we see examples of theology being deemphasized in general such as in the case of the de-canonization of the Lectures on Faith, as well as the fact that the King Follet Discourse was never canonized despite having a heavy influence in Mormon thought when it comes to theological matters.
In a formal Mormon theology it would first be important to establish that Mormon beliefs about the nature of God are internally consistent and logical. I attempted this by providing definitions and axioms which encapsulate either some teaching within Mormonism or some observation from philosophy. These will then be used in proofs which describe the nature of God as well as some other Mormon doctrines. I drew inspiration from Euclid’s The Elements for my use of postulates in philosophy, seeing as I think it has the best ability to explain things in a thorough way. Because love is considered an essential characteristic of God, as well as being generally seen as virtuous, these proofs are calculated to show how the Mormon doctrines present a description of existence where the most amount of love possible is allowed for. Whether or not the starting axioms (or postulates) are true, and whether or not reality really is one in which there is maximal love allowed for is another matter. So without further ado I present the definitions, postulates, and theorems which show the internal logic and consistency of Mormon Theology.
Definitions
The single word of ‘love’ can mean several different things, the ancient Greeks had multiple words for love which are useful for making distinctions between the different meanings. In the King James Bible, the Greek word translated as ‘charity’ is ‘agape.’ A form of that word was used for both the first and second great commandments of love given by Jesus and will be the focus of the following philosophy of love.
Love
Love could vaguely be defined as the desire that a person has to have “one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:18) with another person. When I say “one heart and one mind” it would be more precise to say that their true essences (their things-in-itself or noumenal sides) become unified. The desire that the person has is a will which is the underlying motivation for his actions. For love to be pure, that desire for unification must be the true underlying motivation for a person’s actions, he can’t have ulterior motives or else like Paul said, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3).
To summarize, this is the definition of love that I will use in this theology:
A will of love is when a person has a will to be unified with the true essence of another person.
Pride
Hate can be considered love’s opposite, but President Benson gave a popular talk about pride which leads me to talk about pride as love’s opposite in this theology. Pride and hate are ultimately connected anyways, as President Benson explained as he defined pride, “The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means ‘hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition’” (Beware of Pride, Benson, April 1989). He went on to say that pride is the universal sin; to connect what he said to philosophy, pride is a will that a person can have, and if he has a will of pride then anything he does when motivated by that will is a sin. We can now understand even more of Paul’s writing which I quoted when explaining love; if those seemingly charitable acts are actually motivated by a will of pride then the person would not be considered right with the Father (or in “a state of opposition” to Him) and therefore in sin.
To summarize, this is the definition of pride that I will use in this theology:
A will of pride is when a person has a will to be opposed to the true essence of another person.
Q&A
Is it possible to know the true essence of a thing or person?
Now some would object to knowing the true essence as a possibility; some go so far as to discount the existence of the ‘thing-in-itself’ proposed by Immanuel Kant, so they would certainly object to any proposition about knowing it. The objection comes because the usual way of knowing anything first requires experiencing a phenomenon and if the true essence by definition is beyond phenomena then it is impossible to know it according to the general way of learning. Jean-Luc Marion speaks of ‘saturated phenomena’ which are experiences which fill the senses and even exceed them; because they are not fully comprehended they show a person that there is more to the world or to reality beyond what he perceives phenomenally. This is especially relevant to loving another person when a saturated phenomenon manifests as ‘sonder’, the realization that another person genuinely has consciousness just as oneself.
This is just the beginning of my writings, but I don’t want to spam this with too much all at once. I’d prefer a little discussion before I move on to posting the postulates. Feel free to critique any of what I’ve presented or discuss Mormon theology and the sources I mentioned in general.
