If as LDS we are not willing to look at the academic landscape

[Archaea]

in terms of our beliefs, should we even engage?

Would it be a better tactic, if that is our intent, to continue to ignore the academic debates, and to operate within our spheres ignoring altogether the criticisms and critiques?

The LDS is really the anti-intellectual theology. It's basic, without reference to Greek and ancient philosophy and metaphysics. It ignored in part empirical observation in favor of a faith-based tradition approach.

If we are unwilling, and maybe we should be, to define our theology along historical definitions, should we just abandon the debate?

I'm not certain we should, but often when we LDs engage in apologetics, we ignore accepted definitions, ignore the existing landscape, only partially understanding what has gone before us, and thereby plod clumsily through the debates. If we're not going to do it well, should we do it at all?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

in terms of our beliefs, should we even engage?

Would it be a better tactic, if that is our intent, to continue to ignore the academic debates, and to operate within our spheres ignoring altogether the criticisms and critiques?

The LDS is really the anti-intellectual theology. It's basic, without reference to Greek and ancient philosophy and metaphysics. It ignored in part empirical observation in favor of a faith-based tradition approach.

If we are unwilling, and maybe we should be, to define our theology along historical definitions, should we just abandon the debate?

I'm not certain we should, but often when we LDs engage in apologetics, we ignore accepted definitions, ignore the existing landscape, only partially understanding what has gone before us, and thereby plod clumsily through the debates. If we're not going to do it well, should we do it at all?

Can you tell us exactly what you're talking about when you say the LDS ignored empirical observation and how we part with other religions in doing so? Can you tell us exactly how we failed to reference Greek and ancient philosophy and metaphysics, how we differ from the other major religions in the world in this failure, and why it should be pertinent? Sometimes I wonder if you get wrapped up in your vocabulary so much that you don't even know what you're saying.

[Archaea]

A fair set of questions.

When Joseph Smith began his evolving process in describing whether he saw one or two beings, you can find descriptions where he called God a spirit, then two personages.

He wasn't considering the debates of Arius and Athanasius whereby ancient theologians were struggling to reconcile the Judaic tradition of monotheism and how the person of Christ fit in. IN that debate, Christians and Jews struggled to identify if Christ were actually human, actually adopted while human and thereby becoming divine, actually the same substance but separate manifestations of the same, or two separate substances similar but separate.

He wasn't considering Platonic ideals or paripatetic metaphysics.

He took a somewhat practical approach, and LDS generally take that approach. I suppose most non academic Christians and Jews do as well.

We are very defensive about our history. We have looked at hagiographically, not critically, fearing the polished, sanitized version is the only method to build faith. As a result, we have not been professional about it. It took BH Roberts, Pratt, Juanita Brooks and even the lowly Fawn Brodie before we applied standard academic principles to examine Mormonism. We're slowly doing it, in Bushman, McMutry, but it has taken a hell of a long time. Arrington was virtually castigated for doing it.

I'm not stating our detractors employ much better of a standard, often they do not. However, sometimes they do. I do not agree with everything Quinn wrote or writes, but his standard is much better than any other predecessor. He made Bushman possible. I know they are contemporaries, but their pinnacle works are not.

We don't become world scholars in Biblical research, reknowned and then apply those standards to our own works. We haven't done that. Maybe we never will.

That is where I'm headed. To me, it's all perfectly clear. I'm not certain where I lose you, but point it out please.

[il Padrino Ute]

I put things in two different categories:

Things pertaining to my salvation and things not pertaining to my salvation.

I like to learn different things, but if it isn't going to get me into the Celestial Kingdom, I tend to not worry about debating it and proving it to non-believers; however, I benefit from learning it as it is one less thing for me to learn in the next stage.

[creekster]

We are not Borg. We all need to find out own way and if intellectual inquiry is your path, so be it. I think there are many paths within the gospel that get to the end goal.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A fair set of questions.

When Joseph Smith began his evolving process in describing whether he saw one or two beings, you can find descriptions where he called God a spirit, then two personages.

He wasn't considering the debates of Arius and Athanasius whereby ancient theologians were struggling to reconcile the Judaic tradition of monotheism and how the person of Christ fit in. IN that debate, Christians and Jews struggled to identify if Christ were actually human, actually adopted while human and thereby becoming divine, actually the same substance but separate manifestations of the same, or two separate substances similar but separate.

He wasn't considering Platonic ideals or paripatetic metaphysics.

He took a somewhat practical approach, and LDS generally take that approach. I suppose most non academic Christians and Jews do as well.

We are very defensive about our history. We have looked at hagiographically, not critically, fearing the polished, sanitized version is the only method to build faith. As a result, we have not been professional about it. It took BH Roberts, Pratt, Juanita Brooks and even the lowly Fawn Brodie before we applied standard academic principles to examine Mormonism. We're slowly doing it, in Bushman, McMutry, but it has taken a hell of a long time. Arrington was virtually castigated for doing it.

I'm not stating our detractors employ much better of a standard, often they do not. However, sometimes they do. I do not agree with everything Quinn wrote or writes, but his standard is much better than any other predecessor. He made Bushman possible. I know they are contemporaries, but their pinnacle works are not.

We don't become world scholars in Biblical research, reknowned and then apply those standards to our own works. We haven't done that. Maybe we never will.

That is where I'm headed. To me, it's all perfectly clear. I'm not certain where I lose you, but point it out please.

You're talking two issues here.

1. Joseph Smith's vision doesn't jibe with Judeo Christian monotheism. I'm pretty open minded but I think Joseph's vision you either have to believe or not believe. If he saw God and Jesus Christ, then the Judeo Christian understanding of God has just been trumped, and he rewrites philosophy and metaphysics. It only becomes pertinent if he's making it up, and he needs to understand ancient philosophy to make it look more believable. Where you sit on that side of the debate is not an intellectual question. Maybe it can be, but I'd need more convincing.

2. LDS needs to be more forthright and open and honest about its history. There's nothing about Greek philosphy and metaphysics here.