One more thought on this topic– the discussion about the value of formal training that came up on my other thread dealing with professional vs. lay clergy seems central here as well. To put it starkly: if access to the Spirit is the only relevant qualification for one to engage in theological work, professional training in theology really is a waste of time. I think I tend to see theology as being similar to other academic disciplines; I believe that the Spirit can inspire one to greater truth and insight in any field, but I nonetheless wouldn’t suggest that someone substitute prayer and scripture study for taking classes in calculus if they’re planning to be a mathematician. On the other hand, I do think theology is in a somewhat unique situation– unlike most academic disciplines, it finds itself accountable not only just to other academics, but also to ecclesiastical leaders. And that makes those questions about what qualifications are needed somewhat more complicated.

If this is the useful definition of Theology, than I would say the difference is attitudinal. For the first mentioned authors, they were engaging in reflective religous thought. The J.F.S. and B.R.M. writing was considered by them more authoritative commentary on gospel doctrines. Ironic, considering their distate for such things as Dogma. As much as I like these two far more than what many bloggernacle participants have expressed, it is perhaps in their coming close to codifying doctrine that theology has fallen out of favor.

On top of that, theologizing in the LDS faith has more often been political than religious in purpose. Such a thing has put a bad taste in many member’s mouths about theological explorations. In fact, this has been the situation with religious discourse outside of the Church in recent years. Because of this, members see (in combination with other factors) theology as a bludgen rather than a help in coming to spiritual knowledge.

The reason I am engaging in this discussion is that I consider myself a Conservative Mormon Theologian. As such, I have noticed the same things as you have regarding attitudes toward the subject of theological discussion. Believe it or not, I would like to change that. The problem might be (and I don’t know you well enough) that our purposes for doing so are probably different. For me, it seems such an attitude of theological distancing has created a serious confusion as to doctrinal teachings as understood by those not of the faith. Non-members too often take as a given things that are not set as absolutes. When they discover this, they consider it contradictions rather than fluidity of doctrinal discourse. Even Orthodox Mormons understand this, but they don’t know how to articulate the theological implications because they usually only know how to talk in absolutes. This is not about opening up to divergent ideas (that I am opposed to), but rather ability to effectively and correctly communicate nuances. My interest in Mormon theology is that it is very complicated, and cannot be understood (as Joseph Smith said) without serious contemplation.

As far as the rest of your comment, I think it goes back to the debate I mentioned earlier about which sources are in fact revelatory and therefore legitimate. However, while I think that’s as an important discussion, I see it as being at least to some extent separate from the question of whether theology per se is a legitimate field of inquiry. But I do think that you’ve hit on one reason why Mormons have often been skeptical (fairly or not) of theological work.

I suppose you are correct in your interpretation of what they did as theology. However, I think most of their work was less theological than explanations of doctrine. The exception would probably be Parley P. Pratt and B.H.Roberts whose major works and ideas were highly contraversial during their own lives. In other words, they were exceptions rather than the rule when they wrote. If you include them, I don’t see why you can’t include Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie as theologins as well.

Not that the above can answer the question of why theology is looked down upon so much today. My own feeling is that the processes of theology isn’t seen as a problem so much as the idea of theology. Perhaps it is a samantics problem. Who isn’t enganged in doctrinal topics who aren’t also engaging in theology? Are the two interchangable or completely different? What is theology?

If it is true, as your post almost more than implies, that “Theological reflection is dependent on these [traditional outside] sources,” no wonder most Mormons reject it. They already believe those sources are what they are trying to get away from and should be rejected. At best they can be used to follow the path of Apostacy and not for any insight into God’s words. Even those early LDS theologins you listed often spoke negatively of the teachings of the Christian Fathers. My guess is that you overstate your case when you say that what the LDS thinkers you listed did was theology as you understand the term. That is, of course, dependant on the definition of the word.

Jettboy, that’s a good point that Joseph Smith had quite a bit of contempt for what he referred to as “dogma,” and I don’t doubt that his outlook has continued to influence the church. However, I’m not sure that theology as such has always had the bad reputation that it currently does–I can think of a number of people in the first century of the church’s existence who seem to have understood themselves as engaging in theological work: Parley P. Pratt, John A. Widtsoe, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage. I don’t know the history well enough to know when and why that changed.

Robert C., thanks for the link. That article brings up more issues than I have the energy to tackle at the moment, but I do think that question of how an emphasis on orthopraxis (and I agree that Mormons seem closer to Jews than to mainstream Christians in that regard) relates to a theological tradition (or the lack thereof) is one worth thinking about.

Ruby, someday I too plan to read <em>A Brief History of Time</em>, though I may well have the same experience that you did!

Jessawhy, that’s a really good observation; I think the term “theology” is often a rather vague one for Latter-day Saints, because it doesn’t obviously connect to any aspect of church experience. As has been said several times, it’s there implicitly–when a Sunday School teacher asks “what is faith?” or “what is revelation?”, they’re asking you to engage in theological thought. But I certainly had no idea at all what academic theology looked like before I decided to get involved in it; that’s a good idea for a future post.

Vada, you raise an interesting point about having multiple traditions involved. I agree that what theological work has been done in Mormonism has been quite insular, and not in dialogue with the broader Christian theological tradition. I think there’d be benefits to both sides if that were to change.

ECS, I’ve also wondered how our cultural resistance to debate plays into this. I’ve occasionally heard that theology isn’t necessary for Mormons because we already have all the clear answers. If Latter-day Saints–even General Authorities–have different takes on theological issues, does that call into question our claim to be the true church? I don’t see that it necessarily would, but I have gotten the impression that’s a concern.

Robert C., that issue of church leaders and the revelatory trump card really is at the heart of this, I think. Is it possible to have both a strong church hierarchy with inspired leaders, and a theological tradition? The Catholics seem to do it–though ecclesiastical leaders do clash sometimes with theologians. In the LDS faith, I’ve often wondered: do we believe that the call to be a GA involves playing the role of a theologian? If we had professional theologians, would that potentially undermine the ecclesiastical hierarchy? I have to say that the current situation, in which the quasi-official interpreters of doctrine seem to be BYU religion professors–many of whom don’t have much academic training in religion (though I do realize there are exceptions to that)–doesn’t strike me as all that optimal.

It’s a pretty long article. Basically, he argues that the Apostacy was a result of Greek philosophy influencing Christian theologians who, following Plato esp., put more emphasis on correct belief, at the expense of orthopraxy. The Jews did a better job preserving the dynamic and hence unknowable character of God, so there’s no such thing as Jewish theology (also related to an emphasis on following the law more than beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise). Joseph Smith, then, can be viewed as restoring the original, correct ideas of Judaism, but with the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah.