G’night

I agree that there is a right answer.

That said, even Dworkin believes that “hard cases” have correct answers even if we lack clearly determinate methodologies for determining what they are. Put in simpler terms, the fact that we inevitably disagree doesn’t mean that one of us isn’t wrong. Furthermore, the existence of “hard cases” does not mean that there are not also easy cases. I think that there are lots of really easy cases of Church Doctrine. Indeed, I think that it is the brute existence of these easy cases — rather than a determinate methodology — that makes us think that Church Doctrine is relatively determinate. I’ve got no problem with this perception, so long as we don’t let it trip up our thinking when we try to approach the question of Church Doctrine more abstractly.

As for the metaphysical question, I don’t really know. I do think that there are right answers the questions of church doctrine. I am not sure whether this is because I think that church doctrine is a reflection of metaphysical absolutes or because I believe that contestable interpretive issues have right answers. I tend to believe that Church Doctrine is a human artifact, a made thing, rather than a reflection of eternal verities. On the other hand, I think that it is much, much more than simply a human artifact. I think that Spirit of God is at work in the Church and its Doctrine, and that Church Doctrine provides us with a channel into the mind of God unavailable anywhere else.

maria: I like your suggestion that we find God in the struggle of interpretation, but I don’t want to say that the struggle is all there is. The Islamic jurists have a concept they lable ijtihad, which means something like a whole-souled struggle to interpret the sacred texts to find the will of God. The classical jurists understood ijtihad as form of worship in and of itself. They also, however, believed that there really right answers to juristic question, and that the judge (qaddi) who imposes sentence contrary to shar’ia would be held accountable before God, even when the answer was unclear and the qaddi had engaged in the most rigorous ijtihad. As a result, while there were many learned men who engaged in ijtihad in the abstract, the greatest jurists were loath to act as actual judges because they realized that more was at stake then mearly ijtihad. I am not entirely happy with all of the details of this approach, but I like the spirt of the classical jurists. Interpretation is a form of worship, but there is more at stake than simply interpretation.

A lot of the problems do stem off of the varrying viewpoints of scriptural interpretation. Alma and other like prophets in the Book of Mormon viewed the spirit world a place where no repentance is granted- once your dead you are lost forever if you have not repented. Section 138 and other scripture references however state that repentance very much is granted to the rebellious in the spirit world. Which one is an absolute “true” doctrine then if they are both scripture and were viewed by both peoples as a true doctrine? What this shows me is that sometimes even scripture can be recorded outside of establishing absolute true doctrines.

So I guess the question we are really after is what is true and what isn’t? There are certain absolutes in mormon doctrine and mostly they hinge off of the specific things Christ himself is recorded as saying such as -” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

(New Testament | Mark 16:16)

I agree that Mormonism lacks an easily formulated rule of recognition. But that is often the case for legal systems where positivist frameworks are still seen as workable.

If Mormon doctrine is hermeneutical, could it be that there is still one right answer about what doctrine is, and the ambiguity and complexity is just a matter of epistemics. I think if asked, and not pushed to specifics, most Saints would intuitively say our doctrine is determinate. Hence the constant invocation of (unsatisfactory) rules of recognition.

I guess I am asking whether you think Mormon doctrine is ever fixed and determined and just not easily known, or is the mystery you reference also metaphysical?

I have suggested before that your conception of mormonism has a Dworkinian element to it, and I think this post fits my characterization.

Your emphasis on normative interpretation sounds very much like Dworkin’s theory of law as constructive interpretation (or “principled coherence”). Essentially, a judge synthesizes the whole of the intuition’s history and asks what moral principles “fit” the institution. Then the judge asks which principles best justify the institutional history from the standpoint of political morality. This sounds very much like charitably interpreting Church practices, texts, and experience. But what in Mormonism is the ultimate justification? For Dworkin, it’s about justifying coercion. For Mormonism, what does “charitably” mean? Do you just mean in a way that portrays our tradition as good and noble, or do you mean charity as the love of Christ? I like the latter.

It may be that knowing our doctrine is a “Herculean task” (again to apply/stretch Dworkin). But I think the idea of “the gospel” jives better with a metaphysically determinate doctrine with epistemic problems than it does with one that is necessarily indeterminate and contextual.

So a thought that I have been stewing on this afternoon is that the quest to determine black-letter doctrine might never yield fruit…but that maybe the process of engaging ourselves about these questions and seeking to connect with God more individually and authentically is what this is all about.
—-
Phew. That was scary. I’ve never dared to comment on a Nate Oman post before.

So, to pose a philosophical problem, for the purposes of the realm of this world in which we act, understand things, and live our lives, is there a difference between the unchanging ideals of doctrine and the doctrine as we understand it?

My impression is that Nate’s saying no; all the doctrine that we have is the doctrine that we understand. Because of this difficulty, we must be constantly willing to tweak our beliefs and tell different stories about them as we try to understand God better.