Describing ecclesiastical areas of service, ironically tell us nothing important about specific degree of doctrinal knowledge, understanding and insight. Nor do positions of service indicate whether one is free from or deeply mired inside personal speculative contaminations and simple misunderstanding (which we ALL have).
I am an adult LDS convert of no particular present ecclesiatical import. I realized early on that the LDS are not a monolithic block of believers that come off a single assembly line, but instead, are free, as Joseph Smith said, to think for themselves and who come to their own evolving and changing conclusions as they gain information, line upon line and precept upon precept, “here a little and there a little”. I have however, because of circumstance, had some association with a few apostles and realized this concept applies to them as well. One apostle interviewed me in the context of a positive church project I was embarking on. I was at another apostles home where I was invited for their family home evening. While there, yet another apostle arrived and spoke to us all on some thoughts he was having (some of which were speculative).
My point is that I have some personal basis for my observations that apostles of all ages are allowed speculations and personal opinions which are not the same as doctrinal revelations (which themselves may be clearly understood and clearly described or may be revelations poorly understood and poorly or inaccurately described).
It is difficult to tell from any theological distance, when a comment and explanation from a Church leader is leaving firm knowledge base and has drifted into personal, speculative thought (but which the hearer assumes is "doctrine"). Thus, I like Katzpurs distinction between what is “official” and "doctrinal" and other dogma that is "personal" and “speculative”. For example, The book “Mormon Doctrine” by McConkie, was “official” to me, until I realized it wasn’t “official” and it wasn’t “Mormon Doctrine”. The assumption that something written is "doctrinal" causes endless misunderstanding when investigators read about another religion, whether it is LDS or Catholics, or Protestant or Islam.
SPECIALIZATION OF VARYING PERSONAL CONTEXTS FOR GOSPEL STUDY
I also notice that we religionists often tend to become somewhat “specialized” in our approach to learning gospel principles. One person may tend to learn about administrative functions of the gospel; another may concentrate on Grace and Mercy and its operations while another may be drawn towards the justice and logic of God and his plan. The modern Scriptorian may have texts memorized, but place them into inaccurate modern contexts since they are not historians. The historian may have few text memorized but may know what a text meant to the individuals it was written by or to. All such these differences are manifest in our communication and posts.
It occurred to me as a convert, that if the Restoration Theology IS a version of early Judeo-Christianity, then the same interpretations of biblical text and the same contextual themes ought to exist in early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses as evidence. This realization spurred a concentration of my historical interest in early Judeo-christian textual witnesses found in early Christian diaries, their lectionaries, the earlier various versions of Greek New Testaments, their hymns, their synagogal prayers, etc. I am drawn to concentrate so much on early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses, that I know very little about the history surrounding the Mormons in Nauvoo, while another LDS may know everything about Nauvoo, and nothing about the Christians flight from Jerusalem to Pella.
My point is that all of these individuals; the “administrative” type, the one who concentrates on “Grace and Mercy”, the one who learns about the operations of “justice” and the “logical” theist, as well as the historian, all add something to our accumulating, evolving degree of insight we all are gaining into eternal and unchanging principles which underlie truths and what God is doing inside this plan for mortality.
For example, both of you have slightly different insights regarding Jesus and Godhood, the historian might add yet another insight for consideration. For example, The GN-4 reading for John 1:18 in Greek is “No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared (εξηγησατο..described/explained, etc) him.”
What did this early new testament statement “the only Begotten God” (as a reference to Jesus), mean to the earliest Christians who read it in their version of John? Did it mean that there was a time when Jesus was not a God, or when he was not a Son, or does greek “μονογενης” (only-begotten) in this case mean something to early koine-speaking Christians that is not captured by the English translation. Etc, etc. Almost any conclusion I come to as to what this meant to the believing readers of such early Christian New Testaments has some element of speculation to it.
DEVELOPING AND EVOLVING PERSONAL MODELS (Solid Base Doctrine versus Speculation on non-basic details)
I do not know about others, but I do know that I develop personal base models of religious principles. I then fully expect to find errors in this model; points that I misunderstood, and data that I lack, etc. I find base historical models change and refine themselves as I am exposed to further and better historical data.
As a historian of early Judeo-Christian theology who has converted to Restorational / early Christian Theology I have found the base restorational theology to be rock solid regarding base salvational claims. However my own speculations and assumptions about esoteric details and doctrines change over time. If my knowledge and beliefs were static, then I would have the same beliefs; knowledge and understanding that I had as a child.
Though models of base, salvational doctrines are confirmed in the historical textual witness of early Judeo-Christians, the tentative, speculative models about non-essential, non-salvational, non-basic doctrinal speculations change as my knowledge and understanding change. This simply dresses the base model in increasingly finer and better understood theological dress over time.
In any case, I have learned some very fine things about God and his plan from people I have disagreed with. They have caused me to re-assess and improve my own model far more than the individuals who simply agreed with a current, discrete, assumption I made.
Good luck in your own personal spiritual journeys in this life Katzpur and Norman
Clear
δραψφιω
