I think reason in Mormonism is important not only in the sense of an academic discipline of sorts but also in the way it seems to be intrinsic to our basic doctrines — a basic staple of living the gospel. The idea of moral agency, for instance, doesn’t have much meaning without one’s ability to reason. I like Elder Oaks’ approach to reason and revelation which is, in a nut shell: reason should have the first word while revelation should have the last.

Sterling McMurrin’s “The Philosophical Foundations of Mormonism” is, in my view, a great read, even if written by a self proclaimed “Heretic” (a term he advocated for in the place of the term “apostate”–I’ve long had a problem wondering why one would go to lengths to distinguish the two). I think it’s amazing to see the inherent elegance in Mormonism’s philosophical foundations, foundations which were totally emergent from the doctrine rather than the doctrine being formulated around philosophy. The fact that there really hasn’t been much in the way of looking at the philosophical underpinnings of our theology will further demonstrate the fact that the real philosophical roots of Mormonsim were by no means worked out by egg heads in councils nor by men of genius concocting devious schemes. The doctrine was revealed, lived, the frame work set up without anyone much looking under the hood, now that we find ourselves trying to figure out the mechanics it’s an amazing sight to behold.

An “apostate” is someone who has renounced their loyalty to the Church.
A “heretic” may still be quite loyal.

HiveRadical:
I am glad to hear that other Latter-day Saints are reading McMurrin’s PFM. Mormonism has a firm philosophical foundation in which I hope more Latter-day Saints will take a greater interest. Latter-day Saint ecumenical efforts should increase as long as we hold fast to that foundation. Otherwise, I see a real danger in being viewed too closely with traditional Christianity.
Eternalism requires that both experiences, reasoning and receiving revelation be “direct” and “material.” I use the term material as opposed to immaterial which Joseph Smith was taught to reject. Both processes require matter, energy, and what the scriptures call “light” which all lead to an increase in knowledge or enlightenment.
Without a real knowledge or understanding of how direct revelation is possible, there can be little faith in it. If there is no faith in such a process, there can be few blessings in it, if at all.

The biggest thing that I find troubling with the mormon faith is the truth. When we tell the truth, we dont have to remember what we said. mormons have to always explain away what one of there prophets have said in the past. This is what kills there faith. People see through the excuses that all what was said in the past is not true anymore. But it was the truth by there prophets on the day they said what they said. Only later on it was changed. Its not just a couple of things that they have changed either. I myself am amazed at how many people follow something without testing the scriptures and testing who is supposedly guiding them.

tom,
The correct usage is “their” not “there”.
I myself am amazed at those who post comments that reveal their lack of understanding of basic English grammar. Capitalization, punctuation and sentence composure would be nice.
Thanks.

Tom,
I understand the difficulty you have with Mormon teaching in terms of having to correct or clarify the words of early leaders of the Church. I too had that problem but less so now that I, as a life long Mormon, understand better the process through which truth was revealed to the early leaders. There are two points you should consider. The first thing that you should recognize is that the LDS church is a record keeping church. It is only because of that fact that many of the criticisms can even be launched in the first instance. If you could trace the teachings say of a particular minister of a given Baptist church and his or her predecessors, you would no doubt find many inconsistencies. No only would you find inconsistencies, but you would find that many of the early doctrines have either been abrogated or abandoned. There was, for example a time when many people though that it was fine to participate in the activities of the Klu Klux Klan. I don’t think you’d now find many Baptist adherents taking that view even though as a Christian denomination, the Baptists purport to have always followed the Bible.
The second thing I think that you should consider is the manner in which light and knowledge was imparted to the early prophets. I have come to understand through reading Bushman and others, that revelations that were given early on in the church, were not verbatim edicts that had been spell-checked, cross checked or anything of the type. Rather, I understand that for the most part, the early prophets of the 1800′s learned line upon line, precept upon precept. This is a pattern that was evidenced even in the time of Christ when the gospel was not shared with anyone but the Jews at the outset. When the apostles became more acquainted with the true doctrines and “put the pieces together” so to speak, they were better able to understand the gospel and to, accordingly, more clearly and understandably share the gospel. Paul’s writings are replete with advice and counsel to the early congregations who obviously were in a state of learning and progress. The early members of the church had to deal with their own inborn heresies and misapprehension as did the early prophets and apostles of this dispensation. Both the ancient and the early prophets did not “get” everything at once. Rather, even for Joseph Smith, he had to learn – and many times learn from his own mistakes. For me, that he accomplished all that he did despite his weaknesses and mistakes, is testimony enough that he was an inspired prophet who brought truth and light into the world.

That is “Not”and “Ku Klux Klan.”

I love reason, and I love revelation. But revelation is the anchor. As Peter answered Christ’s question, “But whom say YE that I am?” — “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!”. Christ acknowledge that that “fact” had been revealed to Peter by God. When God reveals truth to His children, those become the facts upon which we anchor our reason.

The core to the compatibility of reason and revelation are three principles:
1. The universe is definite and real
2. The laws of nature do not change
3. God himself does things for a *reason*.
Rational theology is impossible if any of these three propositions do not obtain.