Who are the 2008 front line interpreters for LDS theology?

The LDS apologists . . .

The LDS ecumenicists . . .

  • Aquinas (I bet you can’t tell what might be his personal faith; Dave tags him evangelical)
  • Bob Millet(the BYU point man for tapping into evangelicals)
  • _________, etc.

The LDS Historians . . .

  • Richard Bushman (Wait a minute, he doesn’t get into theology. Right?)
  • _______________, etc.

The LDS BYU Professors . . .

  • _________, etc. 

The LDS Media and Apostles and Prophet

  • __________, etc.  Do the Media and the Apostles go hand in hand?  I think they tell stories and manage Church image more than exegete the gospel words and works of the LDS God(s).  Would you think so?

Or is it Stephenie Meyer?


  1. Ok, I couldn’t resist putting in Stephenie.

    Are the men picking up her 2008 tithe? 😉

  2. They are the Mormon Anarchists…

    myself, LDS Anarchist

    William Vanwangenen and the rest of the gang at The Mormon Worker

    Stephen Wellington and the rest of the gang at LDS Cooperative

    They are also the Mormon Plasma Theologues…

    myself, LDS Anarchist

    Anthony E. Larson

    Now, mind you, you said “frontline,” not “official.” For official LDS interpretations, that would be the First Presidency.

  3. Since Mormons don’t really do theology, the job gets left to whoever wants to take the time to do it properly.

    Not that I’m dissing on Blake, or anyone else, of course…

    It’s just that LDS are more interested in history and ethics than they are in theology. It’s not accepted as overridingly important.

  4. I tend to gather this same idea, Seth.

    But past LDS authorities have taken up the LDS theological ensign like James E. Talmadge, Bruce R. McConkie, etc.

    Why no hunger for the doctrine of God in 2008?

    I hunger for an awakening and revival of the understanding and study of God.

    Knowing God more deeply is fundamental.

  5. Although many Christians lack the complete philosophical interest of Aquinas, (or for LDS, Talmage, Roberts, Ostler,) many seek to understand Him through personal experience and service. Especially among LDS, the tendency is to learn about God through scripture study, prayer, and service. Hunger for the doctrine of God, if carried above this basic level of loving God and loving one’s fellowmen, can easily slide into idolatry. I, too, enjoy thinking about God on a deeper level, but hope I do not do this at the expense of learning about Him the way sacred scripture prescribes.

  6. Todd, you seem to be assuming that doctrine is equivalent with theology.

    It isn’t. Theology is not the only way to approach God. You exhibit the relentless Protestant impulse to over-intellectualize the Gospel. Ethics and history are every bit as valid an approach to the Gospel as theology, and arguably more so.

  7. Todd,

    In your perception, what are the doctrines being taught by the LDS prophets and apostles in 2008 and recent years? Do you suppose that today the more wicked state of the world drowns out the study and understanding of God? Why were the apostles of Jesus able to understand the mysteries, while the people had such a hard time?

    “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matt 13:15)

    So we must each ask ourselves “what is the state of our eyes, ears, and our hearts”? Are we really seeking after the doctrine as true disciples or are we seeking for a sign?

    The understanding of the doctrine and mysteries is available if we are willing to see, hear, and change our hearts so that we can be taught.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s