Mormonism and Panentheism Part I: Brief Introductory Sketch

In May I’ll be presenting a paper at the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology 6th Annual Conference, being held at Claremont Graduate University. It’s entitled, ” ‘God With Us:’ Panentheism, Pansyntheism, and the the Mormon Concept of God.” I’ve decided to write a series of posts, which I’ll call Mormonism and Panentheism, based on my research for the paper. If it is well-received, I’m considering submitting it to an academic journal, perhaps in Process Studies. Part I of this series, which follows below, is the abstract I submitted to the reviewers of the conference, detailing what the paper consists of. This should be an interesting study, inasmuch as to my knowledge no sustained treatment of the Mormon concept of God and panentheism has ever been written. (BH Roberts wrote some things that may conceptually be described as panentheistic, but I don’t think he was aware of the word or concept). Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome. 

 

“ ‘God With Us’ ”: Panentheism, Pansyntheism, and the Mormon Concept of God”

 

During the past quarter century (and even more explicitly during the past decade) scholars working in the fields of philosophy, theology, and philosophy of science have given greater and greater attention to the concept of “panentheism.” More or less, panentheism is the belief that the Being of God penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in him, but that His Being is yet more than the universe. This concept is something of a “middle” position between pantheism (God is identified with the universe, and is thus radically ontologically immanent) and traditional theism, which posits God as utterly ontologically transcendent and beyond the universe.  Panentheism’s proponents argue that panentheism represents a fulfillment of a central theological task: Seeking the appropriate balance between divine immanence and divine transcendence. Further, it is argued, this concept is in harmony with contemporary views of science and theology, one that is congruent with theories of evolution as well as the idea of a Creator God that suffers alongside Creation.  Though panentheism is seen by scholars who advocate it as providing a satisfactory explanation for for the possibility of reconciling theology with science, it nevertheless is still a hotly debated and even radical concept among many theologians and philosophers.

            Mormonism’s view of the divine nature is, of course, also considered by most to be wildly radical, and certainly less well-known. Many advocates of a panentheistic view of God believe that such a view logically entails that the divine nature must be embodied in some way. However, none go so far as the Mormon view that humankind is theomorphic, and that God is embodied in a way similar to humanity. Nevertheless, Mormonism is sympathetic to panentheism in many ways. Mormon theology is quite clear concerning the fellow-suffering of God. And while there are still many Mormons who reject evolutionary theory, the opposite is also true in large quarters of Mormonism (particularly among scholars and even the Church’s flagship school, BYU).  There is also ample evidence in Mormon thought of the all-powerful transcendent God of classical theism.

            The purpose of this paper is to seek a dialogical entry-way for Mormon theology to enter and contribute to this conversation.  I do not seek a full-blown reconciliation between Mormon thought and contemporary ideas. Instead, I am interested in how Mormon scholars might present the Mormon concept of God in a contemporary scientific/theological context, and do so in a way that scholars outside the faith might be able to reasonably understand and articulate it. How might we describe LDS ideas of the nature of God that resonate with contemporary theology and science? The God of Mormonism is not pantheistic. Nor is He strictly theistic in the classical sense. However, neither is He panentheistic in the way that scholars who have embraced the concept interpret panentheism. What then, can we say about the Mormon concept of God?

            Little has been done in Mormon theology to reconcile and compare panentheism and the Mormon concept of God. BH Roberts, in his writings as the turn of the century, articulated a Mormon theology of the divine nature in ways that resonate with panentheism. Other Mormon thinkers have done the same, including founding leader and prophet Joseph Smith. More recently, Blake Ostler has made actual reference to the term “panentheism” in his Exploring Mormon Thought series, but even here the comparative theology is bare and fleshed-out. To date, to my knowledge no Mormon scholar has seriously engaged panentheism.

            I will argue that, rather than see the divine nature in Mormonism as strictly panentheistic (and it is certainly closer to panentheism than pantheism, and, as I will argue, a little closer to panentheism than to theism), instead the Mormon God might be construed as pansyntheistic. The term pansyntheism was coined by theologian Ruth Page. Page was concerned that panentheism expresses the human ascent to complexity and consciousness as an unambiguous good given by God. However, much has been surrendered on the way to human complexity, while consciousness often breeds regret for the past and fear for the future. Both are in that sense ambiguous. Further, Page argues that it is difficult to see that the massive extinctions that have occurred on the way to humanity come from the divine purpose. Thus, she emphasizes relational (God “with” us, panysntheism), over essential ontologies (God in us and us in God, panentheism) where God values creatures for what they are without reference to humanity. Instead of God valuing some creatures over others, God instead companions Creation, delighting at each creature’s use of possibility. Pansyntheism is thus “all with God” instead of “all in God.”  This idea preserves the separate identities required to actually be in relationship, rather than one party overwhelming the other.

            Clearly, the parallels between Mormonism and Page’s pansyntheism are not perfectly synchronous. In Mormonism there is ample space for positing an ontological hierarchy of value according to which humanity is superior to all other forms of life (though I have heard the opposite view argued as well). Also, the Mormon view of God may not be totally homogeneous itself, considering, for example, Professor James E. Faulconer’s thoughts on what it may mean tp be embodied.  However, the term pansyntheism, as applied to Mormonism, provides a contemporary conceptual medium through which the Mormon view of God may be more clearly articulated. With the Mormon emphasis on God’s anthropomorphic embodiment, the idea of we literally being in God and God in us (as panentheism has it) is not easy to fit constructively into Mormon theology. Nevertheless, Mormon theology would retain panentheism’s emphasis on God’s fellow-suffering and God’s separate identity from Creation. Pansyntheism, qualifiedly articulated from a Mormon point of view, provides a possible answer, for it retains the conceptual allies Mormonism finds in panentheism while also emphasizing God’s separate identity and companionship to Creation, allowing for a an emphasis on God’s embodiment. The term may be one of many ways to “rethink” Mormon discourse in a contemporary context, as well as begin a more serious engagment between Mormon thought and panentheistic interpretations.

Dave Barry on Philosophy

Yes, another Dave Barry quote. Much better than the last one, I promise. Anyone interested in, and especially anyone who chooses philosophy as a career will find it particularly funny (and possibly depressing). 

 

“PHILOSOPHY: Basically, this involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch. You should major in philosophy if you plan to take a lot of drugs.”

Politically Correct Mush

I thought the following quote from Dave Barry was both funny and seasonally appropriate:

 

These days we tend to mush the religious observances together and say “Seasons Greetings,” which, when you stop to think about it, means absolutely nothing. It’s like walking up to somebody and saying “Appropriate Remark” in a loud and cheery voice.

On Personal Revelation and God-Making

This post may not be read for some time (much less commented upon) due to my lack of updating the blog. But hopefully some will see this and comment thoughtfully on it.

I think it is a fair assumption that there is a common belief in LDS theology that one major purpose for this life (perhaps THE major purpose) is training and instruction in preparation to become gods; in other words, this life is a crucial part of the process of human deification.

It is additionally a common belief in LDS theology that human deification is God’s overarching purpose as well–the well-known scripture from Moses 1:39, as well as other scriptures, being cited for support.

Though I have some experience researching Mormon historical theology, I don’t know offhand where the genesis of this idea–that this life is for god-training– is located. In Rough Stone Rolling Bushman asserts that, essentially, Joseph Smith clearly taught this idea (I don’t have access to the book right now for citation). 

Assuming that this is the case–that this common LDS belief is not merely common but also the truth–what purpose does revelation serve? I am thinking here of personal revelation specifically more than revelation in general. To put it another way, how does personal revelation assist human beings in training and instruction to become gods? The answer may at first appear intuitively obvious: personal revelation from God is one major way that God instructs us in the God-making process. However, this isn’t necessarily so. Consider the following. 

In 1981 Elder Oaks gave what I believe is considered a landmark sermon on the subject: Revelation.In this talk he gives 8 reasons for the purpose of revelation: 1) to testify; 2) to prophesy; 3) to comfort; 4) to uplift; 5) to inform; 6) to restrain; 7) to confirm, and to impel. He then provides details and examples of each of these categories. 

Now, all of these can be seen as having at least indirectly to do with the process of deification. But there is certainly no direct reference in Elder Oaks’s talk to personal revelation explicitly being involved in the god-making process. In fact, though I haven’t time for a detailed study, I would bet that almost all references to receiving personal revelation in general Church literature and Conference addresses have nothing directly to do with “training and instruction” to become gods. I would also be willing to bet that when the subject of human deification is addressed in these fora, A) it is almost never the main thesis or subject of the talk or article/sermon, etc. (this phenomenon itself should be the subject of another long post) and B) it is never more than superficially addressed. Nevertheless, this seems to be more than merely a cultural over-belief. Am I wrong? 

That being long-windedly said, consider the following illustration. 

I know a person who prays about nearly everything, from whether to allow her son to play soccer, to the type and quantity of Christmas presents each of her children receives each year. If there is ever a question in her mind or any type of problem in her life, no matter how mundane, you can bet she has said a prayer over it and 9 times out of 10 has received a divine answer. This is her experience with personal revelation. 

Elder Oaks mentions this type of personal revelation in his speech (I believe he uses the example of praying over which type of lima beans to buy at the grocery store, or something similar) and not surprisingly declares it to be inappropriate and not partaking of the true nature or purpose of personal revelation (which is…?)

The person I mentioned in the illustration above believes that she has a strong, intimate relationship with God, based in large part on this frequent receipt of personal revelation. I would never begrudge her that, nor am I in any sort of epistemological or ethical position to deny her the nature and fruit of her relationship with God. And though I personally disagree with approaching both prayer and Deity in such a (frivolous?) way I am sometimes guilty of not praying enough, and of being too casual in my prayers. 

But assume that she does receive divine revelation from God on all the minutiae of her life. Does this have anything to do with training and instruction to become gods? When God answers her that she should not buy that Easy-Bake oven for her daughter but purchase a Hannah Montana workout video instead, is the purpose of god-training being served in any way, even indirectly? In response, one might say that God is not so narrow-minded. Why couldn’t God answer this prayer, which has nothing to do with such a high-minded purpose, but still be working toward the exaltation of this person at the same time? After all, there seems to be ample evidence that multi-tasking is something God has no problem with. Plus, such a divine communication, no matter how apparently frivolous, might still fit one or two of Elder Oaks’s criteria (information, confirmation, maybe even comfort). Thirdly, she is His child, is she not? What supplication of a child will go unnoticed or ill-considered by an all-Loving Heavenly Parent? Might seem frivolous to you, but not to Him (or to her, for that matter). 

I can understand these responses, and even empathize with them. However, I’m still in the dark in trying to make the connection. My friend in large part has developed the theological notion that God is, above all else, a magic 8 ball. In essence, she “uses” God in such a way that God is basically the all-knowing Information-Provider, providing ready answers for all life’s questions, whether hum-drum or high-brow. Perhaps my friend would argue that her life experiences are what provide her the opportunity to shape her life toward eventual godhood. But then, does personal revelation play any major role at all in this process? 

Nevertheless, I don’t view personal revelation in such a way, and neither do may Mormons. But even if personal revelation is a more intimate, even more infrequent process (in that God allows us in large part to provide our own meaning to our experiences and we should bring to pass much righteousness of our own will) is there an obvious connection with human deification? If so, why is it not expounded more often?

Mormon Historical Studies vs. Mormon Theological Studies

Should I say “versus?” Mormon historical and theological studies do not necessarily need to be opposed. However, they often are. In what way? The appeal to personal experience is often weak (I’ve personally encountered several Mormon historians that have disdain for theological studies), but consider the following.

• There are several Religious Studies departments with chairs in Mormon Studies (University of Wyoming, Claremont Graduate University, Utah State University) whose Chairs are all historians. (Phil Barlow at USU, if I’m not mistaken, has a ThD and has taught theology professionally, but it seems as if the majority of his work has been historical in nature). I’ve personally been acquainted with the process leading up to the appointment of the Howard W. Hunter Chair here at CGU, and all of the candidates were historians, and I don’t believe there was ever an inquiry into getting anyone with an expertise in theological studies.  “Mormon studies” appears to be synonymous with work in Mormon history.
• There is not a large pool of LDS scholars familiar with theology proper, or theology as a field of scholarship (no wonder CGU didn’t consider a Mormon “theologian”; they couldn’t). There appears to be a fear of theology among Mormons (see my last post). In any case, few have academically pursued theological studies in graduate school and few are familiar with the landscape. Even those like Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet–those engaged in dialogue with mainstream Christians–do not have explicit theological training; Robinson is trained in New Testament studies and Millet in Religious studies generally (as well as psychology).
• Mormonism’s most visible and prolific “theologian” is a non-academic: Blake Ostler. This also speaks to the place of theological studies in Mormonism, that, at best, theological studies is viewed is a fringe field able and willing to accommodate “amatuers” without rigorous professional training. (Of course, Blake’s work is anything but amateurish or non-rigorous, though admittedly a little rough at points).

There are other points to be made, but I want to focus for a moment on the appeal of historical studies among Mormon academics. Gerald Bradford has written an article over at NAMIRS (Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) surveying the landscape for a possible positioning of Mormon Studies according to scholarship produced with Mormonism as the theme. In a footnote Bradford notes that for historians like David Whittaker (BYU) Mormon Studies is synonymous with Mormon Historical Studies. Bradford observes that “the lion’s share of scholarship on the tradition is historical in nature.” A quick glance at classes focused on Mormonism reveals titles like “Mormonism and the American Experience” (UNC-Chapel Hill); “The Anthropology of Mormonism” (University of Alabama, UVSC); “Mormon Cultural Studies”, “Mormon Literature” (UVSC). USU’s Mormon Studies Chair is entitled, “The Leonard Arrington Chair in Mormon History and Culture.” At CGU, where Richard Bushman will assume the Howard W. Hunter Chair in Mormon Studies this Fall, he will, according to what I understand, be teaching a course dealing with Mormon theology, but it will be more of a survey course dealing with Mormon historical theology, or the ways Mormons articulated their theology in the different eras of Mormonism. This is an important course (and unfortunately I will be attending law school and will not be able to take it) but it is still not dealing with a critical examination of Mormon theology and Mormon religious ideas. I actually think the course I am enrolled in now at CGU, “Mormonism and Christian Theology” comes the closest to doing “Mormon theological studies.” We compare Mormon theological concepts to Christian theologies and consider individual theological issues within LDS parameters. Brian Birch (the course professor) has taught a similar course at UVSC, but I would be surprised to discover a similar class anywhere else. Even at CGU, Mormonism is only being considered in the shadow of Christian studies and theology, though whether this is appropriate is a matter of philosophical debate.

Where Mormons do not study Mormonism or religion in general as historians or sociologists, they approach religion in general through ancient studies. A large portion of BYU’s Religion department is staffed by professors trained in ancient studies, while the other half (the “Church History and Doctrine” half) come from backgrounds that couldn’t be further away from “doctrine” or theology, with degrees in Family Studies, Psychology, Paleobotany, Education, etc. And NAMIRS, which would be a natural place for Mormon theological scholarship to be produced, is also devoted to ancient studies and not theological studies.

I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, and I have not seriously exegeted Bradford’s article (which is quite good and which should receive more attention). He points out that in the areas of dissertations and master’s theses, the subject matter impinging on Mormon studies is a lot more broad, including theological works. But generally speaking, where historical studies do not dominate, ancient studies (close to the same thing) and scriptural exegesis does. Theological studies has not yet found a place.

Why is this? I’m sure many factors are relevant. Considering the production of historical, scholarly, “objective” LDS works in the 1940’s and 50’s (like Arrington, Juanita Brooks, Thomas O’Dea), it is small wonder that Mormon studies began in the historical realm. But why did it stay there? I have a hunch that early attempts to respond to anti-Mormon literature and historically ignorant devotional literature were historical in nature and this set the tone for scholarship to follw. Plus, the authors writing in the 40’s and 50’s were writing in the decades immediately following BH Roberts’s magnum opus The Truth, the Way, the Life, a speculatively theological work that was the last of its kind. Perhaps their success helped to seal the fate of future works in speculative theology.

I don’t want to lift one way of studying Mormonism above another (I think Mormon historical studies are critically important), but then again I don’t have to; Mormon historical studies is already firmly entrenched as the “way” of authentically engaging in Mormon studies. There are other reasons, of course, for the general Mormon disdain for formal theology. However, that this is the case is sad and should not and doesn’t have to be. Theological studies has an important place in the study of any religion and until we figure out its place in Mormonism–including how it is crucial to helping us dialogue with the outside world and becoming a player on the global scene of religious ideas–then we will remain to a certain degree stuck in a primitive childhood, unable to grasp the many facets of the complex phenomenon that is Mormonism.

 

2008 Sunstone West Symposium: Mormonism and the Christian Tradition, Theology as Interfaith Dialogue, Creativity and Novelty in Mormon Studies

In my last post I mentioned my participation on the “Mormonism and Christian Theology” panel in the Sunstone West Symposium, held here at Claremont CA, March 15, 2008. I here include my remarks from that panel discussion.

 

I’m going to outline three interrelated concepts that come from my rough reflections and observations as a student in this class on Mormonism and Christian Theology at Claremont Graduate University: 1) Mormonism as a part of the Christian tradition and Mormonism as its own unique tradition; 2) The concept and use of Theology in interfaith dialogue; and 3) The role of creativity and novelty in shaping Mormon Studies. As I mentioned, these are rough, probably too short reflections and I won’t be able to cover a lot of ground. Nevertheless, they are, to me, pressing issues and questions, the nature and force of which have been highlighted and emphasized in the class. Of course, these reflections come out of a particular socio-cultural context: I am a white male born and raised (though not exclusively) in Utah Mormonism, a tradition (Mormonism in general, not necessarily the Utah version) which I love and to which I have always tried to be loyal. Consequently, what I say will not necessarily resonate with those not found in my particular socio-cultural context. Nevertheless, I am also a human being, capable of both emotional and intellectual novel creativity and dynamic relationships with those both inside and outside my situated location. Therefore I like to believe that who and what I am, though intimately connected to my environment, is still more than my environment (i.e., I am not wholly determined by my environment). Perhaps because of this, some of what I say can indeed resonate with those most unlike me.

First, if this class shines a spotlight on anything for me, it shines it on the complicated, love-hate relationship Mormonism has with the Christian tradition. At issue are two opposite poles: Mormonism as a member of the “Authentically Christian” club and Mormonism as its own unique and independent tradition. There has been a strong concern in Mormon leadership on being accurately understood by those outside the Mormon tradition, so that non-Mormons clearly understand where we stand. President Boyd K. Packer has said the following: “As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us

 

.” He also said, “otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.” However, it seems legitimate to ask two questions in regard to these statements: 1) How well do we really understand our position in relation to mainstream Christianity, 2) is this is really a put-down? As a Mormon, do I consider myself a Christian, or am I happy to simply say I am a Mormon? Jan Shipps has famously argued that the Mormon church developed in ways that now distinguish its tradition from the Christian tradition in a similar fashion as early Christianity was distinguished from its Hebraic context. In other words, that Mormonism is a genuinely new and separate religious tradition. But for how long did early Christians (particularly Jewish-Christians) insist that their new movement was a rightful heir to and part of the Jewish tradition? When was it considered acceptable to sever all ties from Judaism and proudly proclaim Christianity qua Christianity? Is there a potential future for this type of move in Mormonism, to simply proclaim Mormonism qua Mormonism?Still, the issue is more complex than this. Mormons agree with the oft-quoted Book of Mormon verse, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.” But the notion of Jesus Christ being the center of Mormon doctrine and worship is not usually the central issue. The central issue is the extent to which Mormonism is connected to everything that came after Christ, the tradition itself. Mormons, at least in my view, sometimes seem to want it both ways: to be separate from the Tradition, which is derivative of the Great Apostasy from the True, original Church of Christ, and at the same time to claim ownership of the term “Christianity.” But who “owns” Christianity? It is a normative, politically loaded, term, not a merely descriptive term signifying those who believe Jesus Christ to be God.

At the same time, I can understand Elder Packer’s concern. As Mormons, we arrived late on the Christian scene. There were already Christians before we came along. Christians were already those who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ. If we shunned the designation, sought status as the 4^th Abrahamic religion, as it were, we lose the self-identification of being considered part of the accepted label linked to those who believe in Christ. If we are not Christians but we believe in Christ, what do we call ourselves? To whom do we appeal? As we learned in class, the Catholic Church, regarding the question of accepting the baptism of a new applicant to the church, decided in the Council of Trent and reaffirmed in the more recent documents of the Code of Canon Law, that any baptism performed in any heretical Christian denomination (I.e, any denomination other than Catholicism) was acceptable and valid for admittance as a member of the Catholic Church. However, in 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared one exception to this rule: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon church was not simply heretical. Even Protestant churches could “safely” be regarded as heretical. No, the Mormon church was described as “beyond heresy.” Given the complexities regarding how much we wish to be considered as part of the Christian tradition, and whether we are a completely new religious movement, do we smile and nod at the thought of being beyond heresy, or is there a sincere concern and anxiety that we are regarded by a large portion of the Christian tradition in this way? The question is still a live one for me.

Second, on the notion of theology as a form of interfaith dialogue. As Brian pointed out at the beginning of the semester, Mormon theological studies is the most underdeveloped field in Mormon Studies. I have heard more than one Mormon scholar, in one way or another, describe theology as being something to which they are vehemently allergic. I recall discussing the pursuit of a degree in Religious Studies with my Institute instructor at Purdue University. His only advice to me was to avoid the formal study of theology, as I would lose my testimony of the truth of the Gospel. Indeed, one of the current hot topics of debate among Mormon scholars (particularly scholars in the Humanities) is the role of theology in Mormonism. Some argue that we don’t do theology in the LDS church; others have been busy constructing uniquely LDS theological systems. The contours of the debate are too complex and detailed to describe here (though Brian presented a paper on this topic earlier this morning) but what I want to focus on is the use of theology in trying to communicate with other faiths. If what we do as scholars of the Mormon tradition, and scholars of Mormon intellectual thought in particular is atheological, distinct and separate from traditional theological reflection, how is it that we expect to have a progressive, informed conversation with other scholars of other faiths? Stephen Robinson has observed that “an obstacle to mutual understanding is terminology–our respective theological vocabularies. Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals [and also other Christian groups] generally employ the same theological terms, but we usually define them differently.” Of course, it is true that Mormonism employs novel theological terminology (eternal progression being one example), but I believe that what Professor Robinson is saying has some merit. We cannot speak to one another in two different languages. If we care to speak to scholars of other faiths at all, it would seem that a knowledge of theological concepts and terminology is a minimum prerequisite.

Nevertheless, knowing about and understanding traditional Christian theology is different than engaging in theological reflection and construction ourselves. In some ways I sympathize with Professor James Faulconer’s reflections on this topic. He points out that because Latter-day Saints have prophets and continuing revelation, are more explicitly concerned with ortho-praxis than orthodoxy per se, and do not have an official theology or appeal to creeds to shape our beliefs, then theology is not only antithetical to how Mormons engage their religion, it is actually opposed to it. While I do not agree that we do not appeal to creeds to inform our thinking on theological issues (I think we have our own creeds that we appeal to regularly, though not exclusively to help us decide what we believe) I do share his concern that, because of the above reasons, theology may not be the heart of what makes Mormonism tick for Mormons. However, not to do some sort of theology is not to engage in “God-talk” at all. Perhaps we do not always do systematic theology (though I think sometimes we do) and perhaps we do not engage theology in the same way traditional Christianity does. But to say we do not do theology at all, and indeed cannot engage in it, is to say that we don’t speak in particular ways about God, which we clearly do. And, as this class has illustrated for me, we most often use traditional Christian theological terminology to do so (though as Professor Robinson pointed out, we often mean different things when we do so). More importantly, not to admit this makes it more difficult to converse in any substantive way with members of the Christian tradition. But again, addressing my first topic, perhaps at times, (those times we really want to be a separate religious tradition) we want to be distinguished and set apart in this way. Insisting that we don’t do theology and are allergic to it certainly goes a long way in this direction. But it seems to me that we must accept the consequences in regards to our ability to speak to scholars and laypersons of other faiths. Furthermore, Mormonism is not only being tested and weighed in the global market of religious institutions, but also in the global market of religious ideas. Certainly, we bring, in my opinion, many novel, original, and highly important religious ideas to the table, but our perspectives on the place of theology in our own tradition will not only influence how we present these unique ideas to the world, but also how they will be received.

Finally, some thoughts on novelty and creativity in Mormon Studies, a nod to the important place of Process theology here at Claremont. Process metaphysics envisions a limit to determinism that makes room for creative spontaneity and novelty in the world at every level (be it by way of random mutations with naturalistic processes or purposeful innovation with those who incline to a theologically teleological position). One popular dictum, coined by Alfred North Whitehead in describing God’s relationship to the world, is that “it is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the world creates God.” Along this vein, concerning love of humankind for God, Elizabeth Kraus writes that: “the love of creature for Creator is manifest in attunement to beauty, in openness to creative ideals realizable in the present, and in concern for the future as implicated in every creative decision in the present…this love is a constant endeavor to actualize the greatest value in each occasion of existence, and an unshakeable confidence that all one’s failures and inadequacies will be recreated in beauty.” In other words, again quoting Whitehead, “either of them [human being or God] is the instrument of novelty for the other.”

This philosophy that emphasizes not just the importance of creativity and novelty in the world and in the divine, but their absolute necessity, is one that has resonated with me since I began my own studies in religion at the School of Theology. Before the advent of this class but after I began my graduate degree, I began to be awaked to the creative possibilities inherent in Mormon philosophy and theology. Perhaps Claremont, and other campuses that are initiating their own experiments in Mormon studies outside a predominantly Mormon university, are and will be unique locations for encouraging and creating the most novel reconceptualizations and formulations of Mormon studies ever produced. Joseph Smith once said, “It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind. Oh! How I would delight to bring before you things which you never thought of! But poverty and the cares of the world prevent…” Though poverty might be a problem for those LDS students who come to study here, a vision of the possibilities and potentialities of Mormon Studies surely will not be. Though I cannot claim, like Joseph, multiple visions from God, his description of the overflowing surge is evocative of what I have seen that can be done. For example, in my short time here I have written (and in some cases presented) papers on LDS thought intersecting with philosophy and theology on such topics as Mormonism at the intersection of sociology and theological methodology, Mormonism, wealth, and New Testament Christian Ethics, Mormonism and Islamic Theology, the Book of Mormon and the Problem of Evil, Mormonism and Panentheism in the God-world relationship, Mormonism and ecotheology, and Mormonism and the problem of religious diversity. I am currently completing a Master’s thesis on a comparative analysis of Mormonism and Christian ideas of Atonement in contemporary theological discourse. There are few places in the world that not only allow such topics to be written on, but even encourage it. Claremont is unique in this sense and this class in particular has been a major catalyst in uncovering my own creative theological capacities and realizing the importance of creativity and novelty in pursuing religious studies in general and Mormon Studies in particular.

 

 

Prolegomenon

Welcome. As the title indicates, through this blog I intend to offer my rough musings on Mormon philosophy and theology. The blog title is a bit misleading, however; I also hope to blog about ethics and culture as these categories relate to Mormonism. There may even be some scriptural exegesis, but I am somwhat weak in this area. I hope to improve as a scriptural exegete as time passes. Nevertheless, I find Mormon philosophy and theology to be the most fascinating subfields in Mormonism, so most of my thoughts will center here.

At the recent Sunstone West symposium here in Claremont CA, I participated in a panel on a class I am taking at Claremont Graduate University entitled, “Mormonism and Christian Theology.” A member of that class (also on the panel) wisely pointed out what he called the “fallacy of the native exegete.” This is the limited perspective that a member or strong advocate of a particular organization or position has as a consequence of being so closely connected to said organization that s/he actually helps to constiutue and create the organization. Consequently, it is difficult for the member or “native” to objectively exegete his/her tradition or position. I am certain that I will not be able to fully escape this fallacy in my consideration of Mormon philosophy and theology. But neither do I think a complete escape is a good thing. I do hope, however, to be able to somehat Socratically consider philosophy and theology in my tradition, as well as the speculative possibilities.