I look forward to the book you mention. You are quite right to point out that while early Latter-day Saints may employ the term ‘theology’ they may do so in ways different from how it is historically used in the Christian tradition. This is why I believe including a functional analysis would be useful. In other words, one should look beyond the terms employed and look at the function of the writings or the reasoning behind it. Indeed, this may be a good example where Latter-day Saints interested these issues would benefit from a larger discussion about theology and systematic theology proper, especially if they have had little exposure to historical treatments of Christian theology, and the critiques of these approaches by Christians themselves, so that we might be on the same page when discussing strengths and drawbacks of a particular theological endeavor.

You made some excellent points. I would further add that, for the most part, it is not mainstream Christians that attack Mormons for being “atheological” as much as many Mormons themselves proudly self-designate Mormonism as such. This is why I said that in describing our own tradition as atheological we do potential damage to our ability to engage in serious dialogue with the Tradition. I don’t care very much what critics say about Mormonism, as much as I care that I still have the capacity and the tools to dialogue with them, a capacity that I believe is undermined if I must consider my tradition to be strictly atheological.

I agree with you that the Apologists often do not engage in real dialogue and instead often resort to the same polemical attacks as critics of Mormonism. However, I do think that every tradition needs Apologetics, if for nothing else than to combat the tyranny of onesidedness that exists when critics go unanswered. However, apologetics, when properly employed, should be a tool of those engaged in dialogue in order to correct misinformation or misrepresentation, not a movement unto itself that monolithically seeks to defend the tradition purely for the sake of defense. If a group becomes defined solely as Apologist then by definition true dialogue is not possible.

This question of the place of theology in Mormonism is one that will be treated in a book I am editing (see the About the Author link on this site’s homepage). It’s a fascinating and difficult question that deserves more attention. You are right that early Mormonisms had no problem employing the term ‘theology’ in their rhetoric, but I wonder if they also did not mean something somewhat different than what theology means in the Christian Tradition. Now, as a professor of mine, Brian Birch, has pointed out, the word “theology” is often used in Mormon theological discourse as a rhetorical device for pointing to or discussing “doctrine,” but not in the same way it is traditionally used. I am sympathetic with the view that the way Mormons talk about their religion fits well with post-liberal narrative theologies rather than systematic theology. However, we systematize our doctrine all the time in order to understand it (usually informally). I see nothing wrong with this activity in order to clarify doctrinal issues, but I would also point out that there are many different kinds of systems. I would follow A.N. Whitehead’s “event-based” system as a viable way of “doing” Mormon theology because it is an open system, able to receive novel issues and ideas, rather than a closed and complete system. This would seem to fit more in line with the revelatory theology that Mormons embrace. I should do another post on this later to clarigy.

What I think needs to happen is that term and surrounding discourse needs to be lifted out of, and taken away from the apologetic environment, and it needs to be reflected on historically, functionally and in engagement with the broader dialogue about theology proper. Others have pointed out that early Latter-day Saints often spoke of a Theology and made attempts to systematize or organize the doctrines. James E. Talmage in his Articles of Faith, begins his introduction with definition of theology and writes on the importance of theological study, “The value of theological knowledge, therefore, ought not to be underrated; it is doubtful if its importance can be overestimated.” (1984 ed., p.4). I’m sure other examples could be offered.

I agree with you that in these discussions, even in apologetic discourse, Latter-day Saint statements about theology do say something important about how they view the faith. Hopefully we will be able to navigate the various arguments to come to a better understanding of the Mormon tradition, and a move away from apologetic may provide more openness to reflecting on these issues.

I obviously agree with you: an understanding of systematic theology could, in my opinion, have extremely beneficial consequences insofar as we increase our capacity to engage in dialogue with the Tradition. I will write more on this in a separate post, but Mormons are already viewed suspiciously, whether in terms of theology or practice. When we start saying that we don’t “do” theology, or our tradition is explicitly atheological, that move combines to set us even further back in trying to dialogue with other faiths. Further, in embracing an atheological view, there is a certain sense that we are in effect asserting that other theologies or ways of reflecting on religious concepts are not valuable to LDS people, that there are no insights derived from formal systematic theology that can enrich me intellecually or religiously. And I think that that is both untrue and and dangerous.

However, those that reject systematic theologies are saying important things about the ways that Mormons view, practice, and talk about religion. However, that will have to be for another post.

I feel that theology can serve as a form of interreligious communication. Therefore, some Evangelicals for example, lament that there is no systematic theology in the Church and wish that there were a systematic theology, almost to suggest that true dialogue cannot happen unless Mormonism forms a systematic theology. There is a tension between the goals of a systematic theology which appeals to the rational mind and a dynamic revelatory religion which allows for possibilities. I also agree with the observation that there are different ways of ‘doing theology’ and that a ’systematic theology’ is but one way, but not the only way. I think this should be explored and I think our understanding could be enhanced with a more historically grounded study of systematic theology along with a comparative study of the extent of systematic theologies in other faiths such as Judaism and Islam. In fact, the Mormon way of ‘doing theology’ is a area which I think should be explored and may in fact offer a contribution in terms of religious understanding.