This is some stuff I wrote this summer, when I was first trying to figure out how I felt about the Church, and first coming to terms with the fact that my testimony might not be all I had assumed it was. I’ve edited it a little bit for clarity. Don’t necessarily assume that I still agree with all of it, but by and large it still reflects my thinking.
My first problem is with theology. As in, we don’t have any. Ask any two Mormons what we believe about salvation through Jesus Christ and you’ll get different answers. Statements issued by the First Presidency notwithstanding, we are not by any means united in our beliefs about Jesus Christ. The thing is, individually we don’t know what we believe collectively, as a Church, about Jesus. And that’s fishy to me. And I think it’s a problem with lack of theology.
In the name of restoration, we’ve lightly tossed out the work and thought of some brilliant minds who were absolutely dedicated to God and Jesus Christ. Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, whatever. Lots of people. And we say the word “theologian” like it we say “whore.” It doesn’t feel right to me.
Theology is an academic subject that is thousands of years old, and over time it has developed a specialized vocabulary. Specialized vocabularies are important because they let you talk about a subject with precision and say what you really mean so that the hearer understands it. We can’t talk about Jesus Christ and say what we mean in the Church because we don’t have the vocabulary to do so. The vocabulary exists, but we have systematically rejected it from day one (or maybe we systematically rejected it over time, I don’t know- it’s irrelevant to this point). Even better, we actually make light of the theology of the past twenty centuries, and the only time we ever hear an established theological term is when James E. Talmadge is refuting it.
For example,when it comes to justification (the process by which our sins are justified, or made okay), do we believe in infusion or imputation? Infusion means that Christ’s atonement pours a measure of his righteousness into us in order to make up the slack, to cover the distance we need to hit the right level of righteousness or holiness in order to qualify for sanctification or salvation. Imputation means that Christ’s atonement actually switches out his righteousness for ours, and ours suffers and dies with him, while his righteousness substitutes for ours totally, in order to qualify us for sanctification/salvation.
Which do Mormons believe?
Many Mormons would tell you infusion, but they wouldn’t use the word. They’d quote that “after all we can do” scripture. At least two Mormons (me and the guy that wrote Beleiving Christ) believe in imputation, agan although we wouldn’t use the word. Is it important? Maybe not. I’ll tell you this: Protestants believe in imputation and Catholics believe in infusion, and the Protestant/Catholic schism is pretty big. I know it’s not the only dividing issue, but it seems a fundamental one.
But Mormons don’t know which one they believe (or rather, they all think they know which one they believe, but it turns out it isn’t the same one). If we ever talk about it, it winds up a mess of semantics because we’re trying to pick it apart without using a common vocabulary. In the meantime, we haven’t actually developed our own vocabulary for talking about theology, as far as I know.
Why not? That sort of brings me to my second point. No debate. We do not debate in this Church. We do not disagree. Debate and disagreement are inappropriate and discouraged. That means we all sit around pretending we believe the same things (even being smug because “aren’t we lucky that we have revelation to clear up all the confusion we see in other Churches!”) when we don’t! We don’t believe the same things, not when it comes to the most important thing, Jesus Christ!
There’s this idea in the Church that all questions have been answered (at least all of the important ones, maybe not stuff about Kolob and things “not necessary for our salvation”), and we all agree about everything, so let’s strengthen each other. In theory I guess it doesn’t sound bad, but in practice I don’t see it, and instead I see Mormons being some of the shakiest Christians about what they actually believe about Jesus Christ.
In any case it’s frustrating because in a sense I feel like too many questions have been answered, and in doing so they’ve only opened up weirder questions. And we congratulate ourselves on how logical it all is because we have the answers that everyone else lacks, when the fact is that our answers sometimes lead to further conclusions that are, well, weird. I wish I could come up with an example. Usually it’s stuff about the creation or the Fall or God in the eternities. And you can say that those aren’t important to our salvation, fine. So why do we have so many answers about things “not important” but we still not only don’t know about the atonement, but we don’t even know that we don’t know about the atonement.
Anyway, that’s kind of a tangent. My point is that I think we are poorer for the lack of debate. Heated argument may not be the most spiritually uplifting thing, but debate and discussion is how we figure it all out. Why don’t we debate, define our terms, discuss at length, and then pray about it to see which side is right? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do? Study it out in our minds and then ask God?
The whole method for discovering truth in the Church sidesteps critical thinking, and people will actually tell you that critical thinking is the devil’s tool. They won’t say it in so many words, but they’ll say that intelligence and wisdom are only worth a damn if they lead you to the same conclusions as the teachings of the Church. Aren’t intelligence and wisdom gifts from God? Shouldn’t they go hand in hand with inspiration? Why does inspiration only count if it leads you to the same conclusions as the Church, but otherwise it’s the devil misleading you?
It winds up being like this: “Study it out in your mind but only insofar as you reach the appropriate doctrinal conclusion (because otherwise you’re being misled by the devil), then pray to find out if that conclusion is true, and if you get a ‘yes,’ it was from God and if you get a ‘no’ it was from the devil, or just from your own emotions.” Isn’t that sort of an a priori thing? I mean, that method is guaranteed to lead you to conclude the Church is true. It would lead you to believe anything is true that you applied it to, wouldn’t it? I don’t think that’s a good way to get to the truth at all.
Sailing to Byzantium 
It’s amazing to me how different the experiences we’ve had both growing up LDS, and the different viewpoints we have on what they believe. For example, the bishop I had when I was a teenager was extremely logical, and wanted all the kids to use their heads. So when I heard some people say just trust the Church, don’t think about it, it didn’t jive. I feel like you’re mischaracterizing the Church, but who am I to say that it isn’t like that. All I can say is it isn’t like that for me.
Also, you seem to not like the Mormon vocabulary. I can understand that. In fact when I bear my testimony, I purposely avoid using tired phrases. No “I have a testimony that the Church is true.” It’s used so much it doesn’t have meaning. Sometimes it is hard to look past the phrases that have become trite and find the ideas behind them.
I’m saying that Mormonism doesn’t even have a vocabulary, at least not one that lets us talk about theological principles and ideas and communicate effectively what we mean. Thus, we imagine that we all “believe the same things,” but in reality we understand them all so differently that we’re not even close.
Thelogy as an academic discipline developed a vocabulary for talking about theological issues over thousands of years, and even if Mormonism is true, I believe it is nevertheless guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Mormons are trying to reinvent the theological wheel, and they’re doing a confusing and inefficient job of it.
I guess it depends on which Mormons you talk to.
Which is kind of exactly what I’m getting at.
But aren’t all religions like that? Everyone has their own interpretation.
But other religions admit it, and accept that. In other religions, that’s okay. They don’t pretend to know all the answers or that they all believe the same thing.
In Mormonism, they do.
I’ve heard LDS say that the church doesn’t have any systematic theology. Which is a perplexing statement for a number of reason. First, that’s almost a contradiction in terms to say NO systematic theology. That means you have a theology, but it doesn’t follow any system, except the system of not having a system. Second, OF COURSE there’s a systematic theology expressed Mormonism. It’s hard to get away from identifying the Articles of Faith and the Doctrines & Covenants as a base of theology.
I think the reason LDS claim not to have a theology is because the Prophet is supposed to be clearing all of these issues up. (I think Joseph Smith actually did a good job of fulfilling this role) And, the Prophet may change his position or contradict a previous Prophet, so the collective church has to remain flexible and open. This leads to members contradicting one another or current of previous Prophets at any given time about such fundamental issues such as “how does Jesus save us”.
You have posted what I believe is a lucid description of one of Mormonism’s most important problems. I wish I had had your insight and understanding when I was facing the same “demons.” Even so, I finally got myself straightened out, but not without a lot of pain. Since leaving the LDS church, it has taken me 18 years to feel comfortable with the God and Jesus I believe in. (They are most assuredly not the God and Jesus taught by the LDS. It has, however, been a worthwhile journey. May God bless you in your search.
Mormons have underlying principles and doctrine, which are consistent. However, individual interpretation and application are different and personal.
What’s so confusing about that?
The LDS church gets overcomplicated a lot by members and non-members alike. I think that a type of mysticism gets applied to the church. Jesus didn’t want it like that, His ministry was pure and simple.
The LDS church can be that way as well, but it requires faith. If you trust the Lord to do his part, and you do yours, all will be well.
I think this applies to ANY religious pursuit. It is the plain and simple teachings that affect us.
We can overcomplicate anything until it makes no sense and we start arguing and fighting amongst one another.
God doesn’t want it that way.
I just had a funny impression:
Two druids are standing over a stone altar, grinding mistletoe with a silver pestle in a rough stone mortar.
“No, no, no, you must grind it this way, not that,” says one to the other.
“But, aren’t we just going to mix this with oxen spittle and smear the paste on our bodies?” asked the other.
“Yes, but you must grind it this way,” the other insisted.
“Why?” asked the other again,” isn’t the important part the prayers that we offer to the Earth Mother? Isn’t it the dance of the wolf that means so much? Isn’t it our families that gather together in love around the fire as we celebrate our existence?”
“You must grind it this way to follow the way the stars in the heavens turn, otherwise the magick goes against the grain and doesn’t work,” the druid explained, “now don’t be a heretic…”
“If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.”
-H. P. Lovecraft
When it comes to experiencing and defining Godd in a way that makes sense to your heart, do not fear breaking out of the Molds that you were either born into or were indoctrinated into. God is not afraid of your seeking and questioning and lack of answers. Only man is.
Well said, Grace!
First of all, hello–I hope it’s okay for me to comment here. A friend of a friend mentioned it as a discussion I might be interested in.
I’m actually a Mormon who’s studying systematic theology, and I’d personally love to see more academic theological work in Mormonism. Like you, I find the work of past theologians to be tremendously valuable, and am discouraged when members of the Church casually dismiss it. I’d also like to see us situate our beliefs in the context of two millennia of Christian discussion rather than attempt to “re-invent the theological wheel,” as you put it–both because it would enable us to dialogue better with other Christians, and because the Christian tradition is a rich resource for thinking about theological questions. I must admit to some jealousy of other churches with highly developed theological traditions. (Though for what it’s worth, there are Mormons making some moves in that direction–see, for example, http://www.smpt.org, for the Society of Mormon Philosophy and Theology, which was started just a few years ago.)
A couple of responses to some of your observations. You mention that your average Mormon isn’t going to know whether he or she believes in imputation or infusion; I’d certainly agree with that. But I wonder to what extent this is unique to Mormonism; my experience is that your average Catholic or Protestant wouldn’t know what the terms meant, either. I’d also note that other Christians don’t always agree among themselves about theological terminology. When you read the Reformation debates, for example, it’s fairly clear that Luther is using “justification” in a very different way than the Council of Trent, which is arguably a lot of the reason for the debate. When discussing grace, to give another example, Catholics have focused a lot on the relation of grace and nature, whereas Protestants have looked a lot at grace and sin–which means that the term “grace” has quite different connotations for each. The problem of language seems to be one that pretty much everyone struggles with.
I’d also mention that I think that a certain amount of internal theological
pluralism, different beliefs within a tradition, is actually positive. Obviously you need some points of agreement or you don’t have a community, but I think that still leaves a lot of room for flexibility. You can find such
pluralism, after all, all the way back in the New Testament, where the
Pauline perspective is notably different from the Johannine one; I don’t think there’s ever been a single, monolithic perspective on Christ and the salvation he brings. In some Christian denominations, of course, a particular understanding of grace is central; what it means to be Lutheran, for example, seems closely tied up with a belief in justification (and justification as the Lutheran tradition has articulated it). Episcopalians, on the other hand, seem to be held together by a common liturgy as much as anything; I’ve had Episcopal friends tell me (a bit tongue-in-cheek) that I should join their church, because when it comes to theological questions, you can believe whatever you want.
What I’m thinking is that when it comes to traditional debates about how how grace works, I don’t think that Mormons need to definitively agree with one side or the other, because I don’t see that having one particular understanding of grace is terribly central to being a Mormon. (Many have made the case that what it means to be Mormon is as much tied up orthopraxy, right behavior, as orthodoxy, right belief, but that’s a whole subject in and of itself.) In any case, I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem that individual Mormons have quite diverse views on the subject of how the atonement works. What I’d love to see is for us to continue the conversation on the subject, drawing on our own theological resources, rather than feeling like we have to align with a particular approach. But I guess that kind of gets at your second point, about the need to acknowledge and discuss difference.
Sorry for the length of the response–you’ve raised a lot of fascinating questions! I wish you well with wherever you end up with them.
I really think the key to the Theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is immersion in the standard works of the Church and a thorough working knowledge of the General Conference Addresses.
The atonement is taught in great beauty and power in these sources. but the final element is prayer. God can teach us when we ask him to. In fact, he will not reveal to us anything that we don’t first ask for.
A word of caution, however, I don’t think we are ever going to comprehend the power and scope of the Atonement. At least not in this life. I will continue however to “search, ponder and pray” all the while recognizing that I am not authorized to recieve revelation on behalf of the church, but for my own and my family’s edification.
See Mike, that’s what everyone says (“The theology of the Church is in the standard works”), but I simply do not see it that way. There is a huge body of informal theology surrounding the standard works, not to mention a thousand and one takes on interpreting the SWs.
And then everyone says “but all that informal doctrine is not official,” but I reject the entire use of the word “official,” since to me it is clear that plenty of extra-scriptural doctrine is taught as “official,” and on top of that there seems to be no real consensus on what DOCTRINE is official and what is not. I’m not talking about what sources of doctrine are official, but what doctrine is.
Just stuff in the scriptures? Okay, but does that mean just things that are stated plainly, or also obvious inferences? What about les obvious inferences? What about places where the plain meaning of a scripture seems to contradict doctrine that is “official?”
All that aside, the mass of informal doctrine still is a big deal. If everyone in the Church believes x, that is for all intents and purposes the Church’s doctrine. The obsession with authority and “officialness” is a uniquely Mormon looking-from-inside-the-fishbowl approach that I do not find helpful.
Seriously, you can say it until you’re blue in the face, but until I see actual change in the Church, I’m not going to believe that there really was One True Revealed theology all along and I was just missing it.
The mountain of the Lord’s house that has been established in the tops of the mountains is that same mountain from which a stone will be cut out without hands to smite the image of the world and break it to pieces and then it will become a great mountain to fill the earth with the light and truth and peace of a thousand years of millinial bliss.
What cuts the stone out of the mountain is in fact a concise and perfect theology based upon the restoration scriptures of Joseph Smith. In 1984 I had finished over four years of personal research that coalesed a perfect LDS theology that filled in nicely every hole I was aware of.
When I diagramed this New Mormon Theology on the blackboard of my Elders Quorum I got hauled up and put on disciplinary church probation. Later after getting impatient with LDS stoginess I proclaimed all LDS leadership spiritually inept and got exed.
But the theology is sound. I go through it lightly at the end of my book THE WITNESS OF LATTER-DAY ZION found on my web site http://www.voteforzion.com
got meekness? do you know that you do not really know? Come repent acceptably and get the promised visitation of the Father in a baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. I write about it on my blog and its everywhere on my site.
I just love the classics!