Speculation & the Gospel

[mikbone]

Speculate (Merriam-Webester) 

1a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT

  b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain

     especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

 

Is it OK to speculate on biblical topics?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Is it OK to speculate on biblical topics?

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "speculate". Not sure that the definitions you provide above really cover the idea of doctrinal "speculation", which I see as something more akin to making up unsupported (i.e. Speculative 1b) models to try to neatly explain your personal beliefs.

In ancient times, it was believed that the celestial bodies moved in circles. Why circles? Obviously, because circles were perfect shapes, and the heavens were perfect. Duh. So when careful observation showed that circles just didn't describe how the heavenly bodies moved around the earth, the idea of "epicycles" was developed. In the epicycles model, heavenly bodies moved in large circles, but also moved in small circles within those large circles. This was sufficient to explain the perceived movement of heavenly bodies; they were simultaneously moving in a large circle and also in a smaller circle along that large circle's circumference. Reasonably simple, reasonably elegant, and it seemed to explain things as they were understood at the time.

Except, of course, that the whole "epicycles" explanation was bogus. Later, more careful measurements made during the Renaissance showed that epicycles simply didn't explain what was seen. There was an effort to make n-level epicycles, tinier circles on the small circles around the big circles. Eventually, the whole thing collapsed. The idea of heliocentricity, that the sun and not the earth was actually the center of things, revolutionized astronomy; further study along these lines introduced the idea of elliptical orbits, which completely explained observations and did away with any need of "epicycles". Today, the idea of epicycles survives only as an ancient, misguided idea, a model that proved insufficient and was abandoned, like bodily humors or the five basic elements or the luminiferous ether.

When engaging in doctrinal speculation, it's far too easy—perhaps "inevitable" might be a better word—to end up with figurative epicycles as explanations. Then we get emotionally and intellectually attached to our wonderful epicyclic models and become blind to further enlightenment. This is uniformly bad.

Not sure it's possible to completely avoid such "speculation". We need to have some model on which we base our understanding, and that foundational model is bound to be incomplete and wrong in places. So maybe it's inevitable that we wrestle with this. But that doesn't mean we should go out actually inventing such nonsense. I remember a particularly embarrassing example that was discussed on this very forum, IIRC called The Kolob Theorem. Never mind that it was not a theorem in any sense; the point is that it was sheer speculation, and speculation using an underlying model that was simply nonsense. Though put forth by purportedly faithful Latter-day Saints, it offered nothing of value to fellow Saints, and certainly set us as Latter-day Saints up for mockery by non-believers and anti-Mormons. While I generally ignore such mockery as irrelevant foolishness, when we invite such mockery because of our own foolishness, we deserve it. And when other fellow Saints invite such mockery toward us by their foolishness...well, shame on them. They shouldn't do that.

[mikbone]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_astronomical_clock

The clocktower above (still functioning) is based on Ptolemy’s epicycles.

And if Copernicus had never speculated on the possibility of a heliocentric model who knows where we would have been.

https://books.google.com/books/about/On_the_Revolutions_of_Heavenly_Spheres.html?id=LH4tWpJzzCcC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

And Copernicus’ model still required epicycles (albeit smaller and much fewer).

 

It wasn’t until Kepler had enough precise data on Mars that he was able to define the ellipse (killing the epicycles)

And then we had to wait for Newton’s law of motion and gravitation to be able to derive Kepler’s laws and demonstrate consistency between observation and theory.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Common sense is no longer common.

I think there's reasonable, useful speculation and unreasonable, useless speculation. And common sense should dictate which is which. But this doesn't tend to be the case.

Most speculation I see tends towards the harmful and runs the risk of driving people away from Christ. Every once in a while there is speculation I see that is legitimately insightful and useful. Even then, it's important to recognize the strong "maybe" factor in that sort of thing. Useful or harmful, most times when people preach their speculative theories it's done under the guise of "I've worked this out and I know it's right!" Add in the fact that most speculation tends towards the harmful and we're not in a good place, overall, with speculation.

[Fether]

13 hours ago, mikbone said:

Speculate (Merriam-Webester) 

1a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT

  b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain

     especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

 

Is it OK to speculate on biblical topics?

Yes, but don’t teach anything unless it’s grounded in doctrine. 

For example. There is a theory by Cleon Skousen that explains how the atonement, intelligence and matter all work together and are obedient to God. I find it very compelling and I mostly believe it. But I will never teach it cause there is no stamp of authority to it.

[estradling75]

Speculation... persay is not the problem..  We are suppose to ponder and question and pray for guidance.  But we are also instructed to use the Revealed Word of God (not just anything a prophet or General Authority might say) as our Gold standard, our benchmark.  This is what we are to measure our speculation against.  And we are also suppose to take Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures as our teachers.

The problem is when we setup speculative ideas and embrace them as truth when they do not have the support of the Revealed Word of God... That is a form of idolatry.  Worse yet is thinking the Lord has revealed some "new" truth to us privately... and then we take it upon ourselves to "share" this truth.  Christ and the Holy Spirit are the teachers and it is against the order of Heaven for us to "reveal" such.  When they want it known to the world they have a path for that and it is not through us.

 

[mikbone]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Speculation... persay is not the problem..  We are suppose to ponder and question and pray for guidance.  But we are also instructed to use the Revealed Word of God (not just anything a prophet or General Authority might say) as our Gold standard, our benchmark.  This is what we are to measure our speculation against.  And we are also suppose to take Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures as our teachers.

The problem is when we setup speculative ideas and embrace them as truth when they do not have the support of the Revealed Word of God... That is a form of idolatry.  Worse yet is thinking the Lord has revealed some "new" truth to us privately... and then we take it upon ourselves to "share" this truth.  Christ and the Holy Spirit are the teachers and it is against the order of Heaven for us to "reveal" such.  When they want it known to the world they have a path for that and it is not through us.

 

So we should be speculating.  It is always good to ponder and question for illumination.  

And likely the more spiritually in-tune, knowledgeable and wise one is, and  the better off their speculation will be...  

Personal revelation is a great thing.  

But to share one's personal revelation as "truth or doctrine" is wrong.  Especially if the personal revelation does not match that of the currently accepted doctrine of the Church.

e.g. 

LeRoi C. Snow, one of Lorenzo’s many children, wrote that the idea behind the famous couplet “impressed Lorenzo more that perhaps all else; it sank so deeply into his soul that it became the inspiration of his life and gave him his broad vision of his own great future and the mighty mission and work of the Church.”[1]  Lorenzo first shared the couplet with his sister Eliza and then with Brigham Young.  When we read Eliza’s hymns and poetry, we recognize that she appreciated the ideology.  Brigham Young, on the other hand, was hesitant to accept such doctrine.  Brigham advised, "Brother Snow, that is a new doctrine; if true, it has been revealed to you for your own private information, and will be taught in due time by the Prophet to the Church; till then I advise you to lay it upon the shelf and say no more about it.”[2]  Lorenzo had learned this new doctrine in the spring of 1840 but he had to wait till January 1843 until he could consult Joseph Smith who stated, “Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.”

[1] LeRoi C. Snow, Devotion to a Divine Inspiration, Improvement Era, June 1919, P. 656

[2] Orson F. Whitney, Lives of Our Leaders - The Apostles - Lorenzo Snow, Juvenile Instructor, Jan 1, 1900, P. 4

 

So in the above example Lorenzo Snow was wrong?  He should have never shared his idea with his sister, Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith?

Copernicus knew that the heliocentric model was correct 36 years before he wrote his book De revolutionibus orbium celestial .  And he only wrote the book at the prompting of close friends because He realized that almost everyone would denounce and ridicule him.  

 

[Guest Mores]

Anything truly inspired by the Holy Ghost is not evil.

The problem comes when we prideful mortals depend on our own wisdom to piece together our own understanding of unrevealed celestial realities (often contradicting revealed word) and say that it must be true simply because we made deduced it to be so.  We often hear ourselves say,"Well, it's just obvious."  But most others (even well intentioned, well educated, well endowed, faithful Latter-day Saints) don't see it is so obvious.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Mores

[mikbone]

49 minutes ago, Fether said:

Yes, but don’t teach anything unless it’s grounded in doctrine. 

For example. There is a theory by Cleon Skousen that explains how the atonement, intelligence and matter all work together and are obedient to God. I find it very compelling and I mostly believe it. But I will never teach it cause there is no stamp of authority to it.

I also like Skousen's theory.  But in reality we should attribute the concept to John A. Widtsoe, as Skousen gives him the credit:

https://rcronk.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/a-personal-search-for-the-meaning-of-the-atonement/

I have some issues with the Widtsoe / Skousen idea, but I love the fact that Skousen came to an idea that helped him come to a better personal understanding and allowed him to feel a closeness to Jesus Christ.

 

We have no confirmation that the following events happened but I appreciate the fact that Cleon Skousen was astute enough to think about the possibility and record it for our benefit.

 

 

The First 2,000 Years  Cleon Skousen, p.104

Edited July 4, 2019 by mikbone

[estradling75]

50 minutes ago, mikbone said:

So in the above example Lorenzo Snow was wrong?  He should have never shared his idea with his sister, Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith?

Did he present it as "Thus Saith" the Lord revelation.. or as a "I have been wondering if" and seeking council from a limited set of trusted people (aka his wife, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith)?  The first one is wrong... the second can be good part of our studies.  And note the wise council of Brigham Young spot on in line with this idea

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I also like Skousen's theory.  But in reality we should attribute the concept to John A. Widtsoe, as Skousen gives him the credit:

https://rcronk.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/a-personal-search-for-the-meaning-of-the-atonement/

I have some issues with the Widtsoe / Skousen idea, but I love the fact that Skousen came to an idea that helped him come to a better personal understanding and allowed him to feel a closeness to Jesus Christ.

 

We have no confirmation that the following events happened but I appreciate the fact that Cleon Skousen was astute enough to think about the possibility and record it for our benefit.

 

 

The First 2,000 Years  Cleon Skousen, p.104

 I have always appreciated Skousen's ability to visualize what happened and fill in the blanks in the sketchy scriptural accounts that are given. I think this is a good the skill for all of us to develop.

Having said that, Abel was no boy when he was murdered.

[mikbone]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

 I have always appreciated Skousen's ability to visualize what happened and fill in the blanks in the sketchy scriptural accounts that are given. I think this is a good the skill for all of us to develop.

Having said that, Abel was no boy when he was murdered.

He was Adam’s boy.

I first read this as a 16 year old punk.  When I recently re-read the passage it had a much more heart-piercing effect...  

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by mikbone

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Favorite son?  No wonder Cain rebelled.  He just wasn't loved enough.  History has misjudged him. It was all Adam's fault after all.

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Speculation... persay is not the problem..  We are suppose to ponder and question and pray for guidance.  But we are also instructed to use the Revealed Word of God (not just anything a prophet or General Authority might say) as our Gold standard, our benchmark.  This is what we are to measure our speculation against.  And we are also suppose to take Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures as our teachers.

The problem is when we setup speculative ideas and embrace them as truth when they do not have the support of the Revealed Word of God... That is a form of idolatry.  Worse yet is thinking the Lord has revealed some "new" truth to us privately... and then we take it upon ourselves to "share" this truth.  Christ and the Holy Spirit are the teachers and it is against the order of Heaven for us to "reveal" such.  When they want it known to the world they have a path for that and it is not through us.

 

Most of all I think I agree with you.  Speculation is a good thing - I do not believe we can learn without speculating.  But I would superate speculations (expressions of doctrine) from covenants and principles.  I am reminded that we have scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants but I am inclined to conclude that the term Doctrine has come to have too broad a meaning to include anything and all things a person thinks or believes.  I speculate that we would be better served to understand "Principles and Covenants" but such would only confound the silly and unthinking even more.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

On 7/5/2019 at 1:03 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Common sense is no longer common.

I think there's reasonable, useful speculation and unreasonable, useless speculation. And common sense should dictate which is which. But this doesn't tend to be the case.

Most speculation I see tends towards the harmful and runs the risk of driving people away from Christ. Every once in a while there is speculation I see that is legitimately insightful and useful. Even then, it's important to recognize the strong "maybe" factor in that sort of thing. Useful or harmful, most times when people preach their speculative theories it's done under the guise of "I've worked this out and I know it's right!" Add in the fact that most speculation tends towards the harmful and we're not in a good place, overall, with speculation.

I think you're speculating here

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think you're speculating here

But is it reasonable, useful speculation or unreasonable, useless speculation?

[Anddenex]

On 7/3/2019 at 9:44 PM, mikbone said:

Speculate (Merriam-Webester) 

1a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT

  b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain

     especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

 

Is it OK to speculate on biblical topics?

I like these two scriptures:

1) "That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth, the keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you." (emphasis mine)

2) "Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;" (emphasis mine)

I like the word theorize in relation to "1a" provided in the definition for speculate.

 

[askandanswer]

On 7/6/2019 at 4:48 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

But is it reasonable, useful speculation or unreasonable, useless speculation?

Reasonable and useful - every time.