Element 3 12 4 Ericson

69

Element Vol. 3 Issues 1

&

2 (Spring

&

Fall 2007)

Te Callenges o Denng Mormon Doctrne

by

Loyd Ercson



e dramatc growt o Te Curc o Jesus Crst o Latter-day Sants n recent decades as prompted unprecedented nqury ntote beles and practces o te 178 year old Curc. Scrutny asrsen sarply rom crtcs and te news meda oer te past decade as teCurc as been glgted n te natonal meda by eents suc as te2002 Salt Lake Cty Wnter Olympcs, te FLDS polygamy cases, and MttRomney’s campagn or te Unted States presdency. A reew o te datapredctably sows a range o ews rom gross msrepresentaton to sncerenqury regardng te ocal teacngs o te Curc – an understandableresponse gen te sarp dergence between many Latter-day Sant teacngsand tose o tradtonal Crstans. Furtermore, as te Curc as grownn populaton so ae te number o members wtn te Curc woactely study, teorze, and speculate about ter beles. Te aalablty o normaton and communcaton oer te nternet as greatly acceleratedtese nqures. As a result, a requent queston rom outsde te LDS at s“Wat do Mormons really belee?”

1

and te reply rom wtn can equally be asked, “Well, wat

is

our doctrne?”Ts paper wll analyze recent attempts to grapple wt te questons o Curc doctrne n te eort to sow te callenges noled n establsngprecse crtera to dstngus doctrne rom beles, teacngs, or polces.Furtermore, tese models pont to deeper teologcal ssues tat emerge

70

Element Vol. 3 Issues 1

&

2 (Spring

&

Fall 2007)

Element

n te attempt to reconcle nallble doctrnal truts wt te growt o understandng mpled n Mormonsm’s concept o modern reelaton. Tspaper does not seek to resole tese ssues, but to elp clary te questonsor uture work and dscusson.hE AUhORiAivE MODEL



e most common approac to prodng crtera or determnng Curcdoctrne s wat i wll call te

authoritative model,

wc attempts todene doctrne by appeal to wat s commonly assumed to be autortatesources and leaders. Ts model as been expressed by Robert Mllet n sessay, “Wat Do We Really Belee? identyng Doctrnal Parameters wtnMormonsm,”

2

and as recently been promoted n an ocal LDS Newsroomcommentary on te Curc’s webste.

3

Departng rom ts autortatemodel, Natan Oman as more recently proposed an ermeneutc approacmodeled ater judcal practces o nterpretng law. in ts approac, partculardoctrnes are appealed to n an attempt to prode boundares or parameterso doctrnal possblty.

4

howeer, i wll argue tat bot o tese models aceproblems n ter respecte attempts to 1) le up to ter own crterologcalgoals, 2) adequately accommodate te breadt o Mormon teology, and 3)aod queston-beggng arguments.Te autortate model appeals to te commonly eld bele tat tereare autortate sources to wc someone could turn as a dente source o doctrne. Accordng to Mllet, a doctrne s sometng tat s 1) “ound wtnte our standard works and/or wtn ocal declaratons or proclamatons;”2) “taugt or dscussed n general conerence or oter ocal gaterngs by general Curc leaders;” 3) “ound n te general andbooks or approedcurrculum o te Curc;” or 4) n “te content o te temple endowment.”Furtermore, some oerrdng crtera are tat Curc doctrnes are ound n5) “te teacngs o te Curc

today

;” are 6) “central and sang doctrne[s]. . . , not tangental and perperal concepts,” and ae 7) “wat mgt becalled ‘stckng power,’ .e., [tey are] taugt and dscussed and perpetuatedoer tme.” Fnally, Mllet places a eay empass on contemporary sources,repeatedly pontng out tat statements o te past sould not necessarly beconsdered doctrne as 8) “not eerytng tat was eer spoken or wrtten by a Curc leader n te

past

s part o wat we teac

today

.”

5

Tus  a bele orteacng s conrmed by tese crtera ten t could be condently clamedto be doctrne.

6

howeer, te appeal to a crteron o autortate sources aces callenges.

71

Element Vol. 3 Issues 1

&

2 (Spring

&

Fall 2007)

Loyd Ericson

Frst, no justcaton s proded as to wy tat partcular set o crterasould be used oer any oter. i tere are, n act, sang doctrnes or sangpractces ted to certan doctrnes, ten te metod by wc one determnests (as opposed to one tat s merely tangental or non-doctrnal) wouldseem to be o equal mportance. For example, Mllet brefy mentons te oldteacng tat plural marrage s essental or salaton.

7

On te autortatemodel, suc a teacng would not be consdered doctrne as t s no longertaugt by te Curc today; wereas, te present teacng tat monogamousmarrage s essental or salaton (and polygamous marrage s grounds orexcommuncaton) would qualy as a true doctrne. As aderence to teormer teacng could proe damnng wle aderence to te latter couldproe sang, te metod by wc someone could dstngus betweente two would be just as equally as mportant or salaton. Yet Mllet doesnot oer scrptural, ocal, or autortate justcaton n support o succrtera.Furtermore, een  suc crtera are justable troug scrptural andoter autortate sources, tey ace te problem o oercomng te act tatte releance o tose sources as justcaton or te crtera would be basedon te crtera tey are attemptng to justy. Ts crcularty s a callengebecause smlar reasonng could be used to establs a arety o metodologesor determnng wat quales as autentc Curc doctrne. For example,i could clam tat doctrne s tat wc s contaned n te scrptures ortaugt n a sermon by Brgam Young. i could ten appeal to Young’s sermon were e states tat e as “neer yet preaced a sermon and sent t out tote cldren o men, tat tey may not call scrpture,”

8

and ten use tat to justy my crtera. Just as wt te autortate model, te aldty o my

Young model

would depend on te crtera o ts model to grant doctrnalautorty to te sources i am usng to justy my crtera. Anoter example s ound n te wdespread bele tat contemporary Curc leaders are correct n pronouncng doctrne because God would notallow a modern day propet to lead te Sants astray. Wlord Woodru’s well-known quote s oten noked n support o ts clam: “[]e Lord wllneer permt me or any oter man wo stands as presdent o ts Curcto lead you astray.”

9

Ts assurance, lke te oters, aces te bootstrappngqueston as to weter t s an nallble crteron or knowng wat to acceptas autentc doctrnal teacng.Te autortate model also suers rom te problem o nterpretaton. AsOman ponts out,

scrpture s not an unproblematc source or determnngdoctrne because multple nterpretatons ae come rom a sngle erse.

10

Category:	Books - Non-fiction > Religion & Spirituality
Rating:
Upload Date:	03/15/2010
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	This document has no tags.

Documents

People