"Just say . . . whatever!"

That's not an official Mormon position. As far as I know, Mormonism doesn't have an official position on having official theological positions. But refusing theology while permitting it is certainly a wide-spread, though often unrecognized, Mormon approach to these things, and I wish it were more widespread as well as more recognized. It's how we've done things for almost 200 years, and I recommend that we continue. In my view taking this approach implicitly recognizes that a religion needs a standard of belief -- a creed and then a theology to interpret that creed -- only if belief is the standard for genuine religion.

But suppose instead that things such as practice and narrative are the standard for what it means to be a Mormon (or anything else). I take the practice of Christian religion to mean being part of the body of Christ (rather than subscribing to a set of beliefs), which means participation in and communion with the church. That communion will usually include agreeing to some, but not necessarily many, beliefs. I take narrative to mean the religious histories and testimonies, scriptural or not, that those in the body of Christ share to remind ourselves of who we are and to help us hear the call to continue to be who we've been called to be. If practice and narrative are the standard, then the rejection of theology as necessary, combined with a tolerance for considerable theological talk -- as well as theological messiness -- is a good way to deal with the tension between the difficulties of metaphysics and the need for it: allow it to continue, but drastically limit its authority. So the Mormon response to metaphysics and theology is not, "Just say no," but "Just say . . . whatever."