Joseph Smith’s Welding Theology: An Introductory Overview

Last semester I came into contact with Jared Hickman’s senior thesis at Bowdoin on Joseph Smith as a New World Baroque figure. Hickman uses the welding metaphor Joseph utilizes in D&C 128 to describe Joseph’s project to weld all humanity together in union. The paper (which is over 200 pages long; it’s a book, really), frankly blew my mind and changed the way I look at Joseph Smith and Mormon theology.

It was given to me by Richard Bushman, who mentored Hickman at one point. I used it to help me write a paper for Bushman’s class last semester on “The Life and Thought of Joseph Smith. The paper is called Friendship is Like Welding Iron to Iron: The Sealing Power, the Welding Link, and the Grand Fundamental Principle of Mormonism. Incidentally, I’ll be presenting it at a seminar on the Life and Thought of Joseph Smith, along with 4 other papers, on February 19 at Claremont Graduate University.

I’d always been interested in relational ontologies and theologies, but Hickman demonstrates that Joseph really took it to the next level. Philosophically, I explain below how his theology is relational but goes further than the merely descriptive nature of most relational ontologies and takes the plight of humanity as fundamentally estranged and isolated very seriously.

I posted the details for this seminar on LDS-Phil, a mailing and discussion list consisting of people interested in discussing LDS thought. It generated something of a discussion. I mentioned that I am just beginning to work on what I am calling Joseph Smith’s Welding Theology, based on Jared Hickman’s initial work on the subject. Someone asked for a description of what this is, and I’m including my response below. Keep in mind two things: 1) I am barely fleshing this out for the first time so many implications (perhaps obvious to some) are not yet present. 2) This isn’t a comprehensive overview, which isn’t really possible in part because the nature of Welding Theology potentially includes all human interpretative frameworks. But also, the sealing power and the nature of sealing in general, and a fuller explication of Joseph’s views on friendship (one of Mormonism’s “Grand Fundamentals”) are also absent, and these are essential to Welding Theology (I discuss them in the paper). I’d appreciate any feedback.

Sorry this won’t be brief. I think brevity is only possible where one knows his/her subject inside and out, and I quite frankly do not yet. This is a concept I am just beginning to work with, so only the most rudimentary of implications have been worked out. In essence, Welding Theology is essentially Joseph Smith’s notion of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which is “to gather together in one all things,” and that “there should not be an eternal fulness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one.” Joseph used the metaphor of welding several times in his sermons and letters (I discuss these in the paper), but the pre-eminent usage I’m considering is in his 1842 letters to the Saints that have since been canonized as D&C 127 and 128. There he describes welding in two ways: 1) welding as a link, where he fleshes out baptism for the dead as the welding link that will connect all generations of humanity together through priesthood, making the unification of all generations a necessary pre-requisite for salvation; and 2) welding as a discursive hybridization of all of human history, the welding together of dispensations, keys, powers, glories, and knowledge into a perfect union. In other words, Joseph Smith’s Welding Theology is the ultimate conceptual and practical working out of at-one-ment, an at-one-ment that is spiritual, theological, philosophical, epistemological, sociological, historical, political, biographical, etc. This is what I meant before by Welding Theology being an encyclopedic circumscription of human history, collapsing heaven into earth, and vice versa, welding not just human hearts but disparate worldviews and theological visions.

Joseph will ultimately say of such a project, one year later, “If a skillful mechanic, in taking a welding heat, uses borax, alum, etc., and and succeeds in welding together iron or steel more perfectly than any other mechanic, is he not deserving of praise? And if by principles of truth I succeed in uniting men of all denominations in the bonds of love, shall I not have attained a good object?” I think, through the rubric of Welding Theology, that Joseph was creating an infinitely revisable and expandable theology capable of truly, and not theoretically, encompassing the whole human family from beginning to end. This was why friendship was so important to Joseph, both practically and conceptually: such a project could not be accomplished outside the bonds of love. This was (partially) why he experimented with relationships, both symmetrically and asymmetrically (polygamy).  Different conceptions and configurations of relationship were crucial. This was why the Law of Consecration was enacted and Zion began as Christian communalism. His beloved Zion, in fact, was the physical iteration of a theology of welding. This is, in a nutshell (to the extent, as Derrida said, nutshells are useful, which is limited) what I conceive Welding Theology to be.

The immediate and obvious criticism (and I’m sure there are many more) that should be apparent is the seemingly ideological and religious imperialism such a theology seems to embrace. It looks totalitarian and tyrannical: sure, weld all humanity together; through Mormonism. Hickman’s work, again, is foundational here, and here is where he really shines. I’ve already alluded to some of this, but he argues that Joseph’s project, and indeed the welding metaphor itself signifies syncresis instead of synthesis. To weld is to fuse extant entities together, to join different parts together, to connect individual units in greater network, preserving difference by maintaining the integrity of the individual unit even in its relations to other units. The text of a theology of welding includes sacred texts, but ultimately the living community of people that form the union it seeks is the text upon which it writes and infinitely expands. The lives of the people and their stories are what produce the text.

Anyway, Hickman’s thesis spells this out better and his response to such criticisms really are brilliant. Maybe I could get him to comment on this list.  The ultimate upshot, as he says, is this: “Smith hoped to heal sectarian strife and seal the whole human family together in love, to make all of humanity the people of God, capable of collectively ascending to the mount to see the face of God. This was the true meaning of the dispensation of the fulness of times.”

So, Welding Theology is the attempt to take seriously this project, to tease out all the implications and parameters of what is actually possible in uniting the whole human family. Comparing Welding Theology to other relational ontologies, these other ontologies (Network Ontology, Process philosophy, etc) all posit relationality and change as essential to ontology, essential to existence. This is a huge step forward from traditional substantialist ontologies that isolate entities and make them unrelatable to one another. But, Joseph’s theology, while thoroughly relational, takes seriously the fact that, in very real ways, human beings stand isolated from one another, estranged from God, other human beings, and even themselves. The nature of reality may be inherently relational and dynamic, but humanity is consistently and constantly blocked from accessing its own relationality, and therefore ultimately its own potential to be supremely related to all existence as God is (incidentally, this is how I read D&C 93, not as merely talking about resurrection, but as becoming intimately related to element itself, the entire universe). These other philosophies and theologies, normally interested in describing the multiple and pluralistic nature of the world/universe, are not normally interested in ways to unify and unite the multiplicity in ways that preserve it while also elevating it to a higher level of existence. I see Welding Theology as being essentially interested in and focused on this.

So, we believe that all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole. I see Welding Theology as taking this assertion very seriously and attempting to work out its implications. I think the potentially wonderful thing about it is that it theoretically requires all fields of investigation and inquiry to work out its implications and frame its theories. Though it is a theology, no one field has a monopoly on creating this framework; all are potentially critical in doing so, because all fields of inquiry are intimately related to human knowledge and its heritage.

In fact, I think Welding Theology touches on a number of fields and ways of conceiving Joseph’s theological project as welding all things together in one, but in a particular, specialized way. This is what Hickman says:

“[Joseph Smith sought to] chronologically weld past and present, sociologically weld ‘the family of Adam,’ cosmologically weld heaven and earth, andepistemologically/discursively weld all human knowledge.”

So his welding theology was a type of encylcopedism, what might be called an encyclopedic circumscription that attempted to encompass or circumscribe the entire universe. The circumscription utilized here is geometrical, not delimiting and homogenized. In geometry to circumscribe is to draw one figure around another, touching it at points but not cutting it. This is the sort of circumscription, whereby “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole,” that might describe Joseph’s welding of the various disparate elements of the past and present, heaven and earth, all human knowledge, family of Adam, etc. Hickman probably puts it better:

“Welding does not entail a pat assimilation of difference, but it does entail an intense affirmation of relatedness.  It does not imply a myopic ethnocentrism, but it doesimply a strategic universalism.  Indeed, welding both preserves plurality and posits universality.”

So I see here a particular method of bringing all things into relation (an at-one-ment) that both preserves and connects, infinitely. In love.

A Vision of Centers for the Study of Mormonism

How viable are multiple centers for the study of Mormonism? Suppose that small centers or institutes for the study of Mormonism could be loosely attached to universities all over the world (naturally commencing with the United States).  The purpose of this would be to disseminate more quickly and efficiently the study of Mormonism than can be done through official programs as parts of university and college curricula alone. Official programs are few, small, and, without institutional support from the LDS Church, and/or major donors; ergo, difficult to consistently and sufficiently fund and perhaps looked upon hesitantly by most institutes of higher education.

A small team of interested persons (or even just one or two persons) could run a Center for Mormon Studies. These persons would ideally be scholars at universities or colleges. Universities would have the general resources and the academic cultural milieu that could host a small intellectual center, a center that does not absorb large chunks of a college financial budget. Centers could receive very minimal financial and operational support from a larger center that is an official part of a major university (like Claremont Graduate University or Utah Valley University, for example). Perhaps in certain cases—and especially over time—those attached colleges would offer some support. The bulk of their support would have to be local, however. Whatever funds can be raised locally for study programs, literature, guest lecturers, operational costs, etc., would determine the size of each center. Local interest would also be a major determinative factor. This interest, however, would ideally initially be presupposed; centers would only be considered in areas that already have some local interest (e.g., Harvard [Cambridge, Mass. area in general], Yale, UNC, etc). Further, it would be unnecessary that center directors have training in religious studies, theology, history, etc., though some academic training and exposure would be necessary due to the nature of an intellectual center such as I am proposing. Furtherance of a center of academic study would likely be less efficient, cogent, and coherent should a particular director be completely ignorant of academic modus operandi, and it would be vital to maintain a high level of academic integrity and rigor. The ideal director would simply be a respected contributing member of his or her academic community and interested in Mormonism (i.e., takes Mormonism seriously as an academic professional, be they a member of the faith or simply an interested outsider). Once again, local interest would largely determine the field of study Mormonism engages, not simply studies in history, philosophy, theology, sociology. Business, psychology, science, family studies, film studies, politics, literature, etc. would eventually be explored, along with their international iterations as more international centers are developed.

The model for this idea is the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, California (CPS), and more specifically the International Process Network (IPN). (I’m sure other research centers could provide models as well). An explanation of how CPS was formed and the manner in which IPN grew out of it will be necessary to flesh out an analogical model.

John Cobb and David Ray Griffin founded CPS in 1973. Attached to the Claremont School of Theology, where Cobb and Griffin were professors, CPS is a research center for Process Thought. The purpose of the center is to “encourage exploration of the relevance of process thought to many fields of reflection and action.” CPS “seeks to promote a new way of thinking based on the work of philosophers Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) through seminars, conferences, publications, and an extensive library.”

Over time process thought was being disseminated throughout the world as interest in A.N. Whitehead was being applied to varying fields of study. CPS was also holding conferences and seminars in other countries. Centers for the study of process began forming, mostly independently, all over the world. In 2001 an international conference on process thought was held in Claremont CA. Here, the IPN, a federation of 15 process-related organizations around the world was initiated “to support, generate and disseminate an international discourse on the meaning and implications of process thought across academic disciplines and conflicting truth-claims, and in relation to the entire community of life and the cosmos.” Membership in the network is available to individuals and organizations interested in promoting any aspect of process thought. IPN sponsors conferences and seminars on process thought. Other activities include:

Providing process-related educational programs and resources;

Facilitating publication, translation, and distribution of process-oriented works;

Supporting process academics and students;

Promoting member programs, conferences, publications, and activities;

Sponsoring international and regional conferences;

Disseminating declarations, resolutions, and awards;

Encouraging the development of process-related organizations; and

Maintaining a website that provides information on process thought and member activities.

So, for example, the IPN includes 14 process centers in China, a few in Korea, Japan, India, some in Latin America, several in Europe, presently over 25 total. Each center is governed by scholars with interests particular to their personal interest, local interest, cultural context, etc.

As is probably obvious by now, the ultimate, lofty goal is a network similar to IPN, an International Network of Mormon Studies, which supports and disseminates Mormon Studies within an expansive, coherent, efficient framework of small (though hopefully expanding and growing) centers of Mormon Studies, a federation of intellectual centers interested in all things Mormon (complete with publications and a special conference devoted to the study of Mormonism on an international level).

So, applying the process studies schema to Mormon Studies, the purpose of a Center for Mormon Studies would be “to encourage exploration of the relevance of Mormon thought to many fields of reflection and action.” The purpose of an International Network of Mormon Studies would be “to support, generate and disseminate an international discourse on the meaning and implications of Mormon thought across academic disciplines and in relation to the entire community of life and the cosmos.” INMS would engage in the following activities (which would need to be adapted to Mormon Studies proper):

Providing Mormon Studies-related educational programs and resources;

Facilitating publication, translation, and distribution of Mormon Studies-oriented works;

Supporting Mormon Studies academics and students;

Promoting member programs, conferences, publications, and activities;

Sponsoring international and regional conferences;

Disseminating declarations, resolutions, and awards;

Encouraging the development of Mormon Studies-related organizations; and

Maintaining a website that provides information on Mormon thought and member activities.

Of course, before such a grand network could even be imaginable the development and integration of even one such center will be necessary, a hub of information and current literature, with sufficient financial and operational resources to spawn the smaller, less costly centers described above. Ideally, a few such centers (call them “central hubs” for lack of a better description) would develop in places like Claremont, UVU, maybe Utah State, possibly Harvard, places where Mormon Studies programs are being officially integrated and realized as part of university programs. These hubs would have greater resources, reach, and clout. Like CPS, these hubs would generate seminars, host visiting scholars, prepare publications (especially e-journals, which are relatively cheap), and have libraries. They themselves could form a small network, and as a network they would prioritize and initialize the dissemination of the smaller centers, with the goal of a creation of an international network.

The purpose of the attempt to create centers and networks would not be control of the future of Mormon Studies by a particular group of elites. Quite the opposite, the purpose would be a more efficient, rapid democratization of Mormon Studies which would hope to see greater participation of world communities (admittedly mostly academic but that might be the nature of the beast and where the interest lies) in the exposure and expansion of the study of Mormonism.

Hastiness and impatience could be accusations, possibly legitimate. The actual real development of such a scheme, however, would undoubtedly be slow and gradual. But further, probably the main tension would be with the institutional church and members of the church in communities throughout the world. There would surely be no institutional support. But antagonism is also a real possibility. Even attempting this would undoubtedly prompt severe reservations among many church leaders, who may view it as a co-opting of Mormonism by a slew of uncontrolled academics operating with no serious oversight. I cannot predict the future, but I do see the result of such a project (assuming success) as the more rapid ushering in of a Mormon intellectual epoch that is ultimately inevitable even given more traditional means of establishing new fields of inquiry, given enough time. I don’t have an answer right now how to assuage such fears (this is all off the top of my head) but I will say that academically it seems to me that we are forging ahead with only a small amount of institutional approval as it is and Mormon studies is growing in terms of scholarly networks like MHA, MSH, SMPT, etc.  An international network of research centers and think tanks would seem like a natural progression in this regard.

In sum, I see here a legitimate opportunity to explode “Mormon Studies” all over the world, and to do so in such a way that voyages across the academic cosmos, leaving no stone unturned.

What is Mormonism? What is a Mormon? Some Philosophical and Theological Considerations of Mormonism’s Task Part 1: Homiletics

This is the beginning of a series about what Mormonism is, and, by extension, what a Mormon is (and no, it’s not so simple as “member of the LDS Church”). I want to consider some of the possibly overlooked, enigmatic aspects of Mormons and Mormonism, and how these relate to what I see as Mormonism’s unique and essential religious task. This first post deals with preaching (homiletics) in Mormonism.

I’ve been reflecting recently on homiletics in Mormonism. This is yet another unplowed field, as far as academic inquiry is concerned. There has been some work done here, but not much. Brian Jackson at BYU has a forthcoming book titled, A New History of the Sermon, Brill 2010. The chapter on Mormon preaching: “As a Musician Would His Violin: The Oratory of the Great Basin Prophets.” Also, Gideon Burton has a bibliography of sources which are concerned with LDS preaching in one form or another. There are also other English professors at BYU who have studied and written on Mormon rhetoric (s0 I am told).

Doing a little research on the subject I discovered an article that discusses a Mormon view of preaching from the late 19th century. The author (a graduate student, I believe) writes about John Nicholson, “likely the very first Mormon rhetorical theorist” who started a magazine in Utah called the Preceptor, “a simple system for enabling young men to acquire a knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel and the ability to preach them.” The Google Books link to the book is here. Most of the book discusses the doctrines of the gospel, but toward the end Nicholson attempts to present an amateur theory of homiletics.

This is a feature of Mormon teaching and preaching that I think is still extant: that our possession of true and living doctrines is sufficient for whatever outcome we anticipate by teaching/presenting them, mainly because the Spirit accompanies such teaching, and with the presence of the Spirit our goals are accomplished, namely, conversion and, in the case of baptized members of the Church, perpetual re-conversion. There is some attention paid to how these teachings are presented, but, perhaps unsurprisingly given the fact that the presentation of these teachings must be adapted to the average member of a worldwide church, there is little instruction how to do this.

The field or activity of preaching seems to me to be critically important in Mormonism. With a lay clergy administering and ministering at the local level, everyone (potentially) is a teacher/leader; a missionary; and a homilist (preacher), among other things. Actually, from the time a Mormon child enters Primary he/she becomes, to a certain extent, a preacher: most children will have given several talks by the time they graduate from Primary, after which, as a teenager, one will eventually be asked to preach a sermon (considering the quality of most of these sermons I was tempted to put the phrase in quotes but it really is in essence a sermon) in front of the whole congregation in Sacrament Meeting. Yet, there is no substantive instruction concerning how to go about doing this beyond the scanty “pray for the inspiration of the Spirit” and “stick to the subject and don’t go beyond the time limit.” The minimal instruction is in part (and only in part, in my opinion) a good thing, which I’ll get into later.

Here in Claremont at the Methodist-run school of theology there are several classes on homiletics, the art of preaching. Most of the students here are in training to become pastors and ministers and must learn how to give sermons. What distinguishes a good from a bad sermon? From the point of view of these classes I don’t know; I only know the classes exist. I would love to audit one of them but time would never permit. But this this is one question I would like to discuss in a preliminary attempt to fill the huge void of the art of preaching in the Church. Everyone is required at many times to preach from the pulpit, almost without exception; for those who become bishops, stake presidents, and high councilmen, preaching is a rather frequent activity. But there is little attempt to study how we have we do this today in Mormonism, how we did it in the past, and almost no attempt to study a little how this could be done more effectively. And, let’s be honest, so many sermons given from the pulpit could really have used some sort of primer in how to preach. Lest one argue that in the end substance trumps form, may I point to Elder Holland’s recent conference address on the Book of Mormon. In my memory I cannot remember one single other sermon delivered so powerfully and emotionally as that one. Post-conference commentary was much more about the delivery of the talk than its substance, which was more or less conventional. (I would point to Elder Maxwell’s final conference address in the priesthood session of April 2004 as an example of a sermon who’s form was quite different from Elder Holland’s–more quiet and conversational–but who’s emotional delivery was also quite powerful). Truman Madsen is another speaker who comes to mind, who’s form and rhetoric was so pronounced and distinct that he could legitimately be thought of as a preacher (perhaps in a sense the quintessential Mormon preacher) than as a professor or even a teacher. I seem to recall that in a post on Times and Seasons Nate pointed out that Truman hailed from the golden age of oral Mormonism, where impassioned preaching and spontaneous sermonizing was considered more of an essential component of LDS ecclesiology than it is today.

Clearly, the mechanics of the delivery of a talk or sermon matter a lot, especially when the hoped-for end result is that the congregation is persuaded or moved to greater conviction and/or a change of behavior. Nevertheless, as I mentioned above there is something vital for Mormonism that there is little instruction given on how to preach, something that helps every talk or sermon to be more self-authenticating and genuine.

The critical question for me is: Of what should LDS preaching consist? What would it look like? How might it be different than preaching in other denominations? This discussion would center on preaching from the pulpit rather than teaching a class, so how is preaching different than teaching? The point is that in Mormonism, every member should be a missionary; but every member in fact is a preacher.

I was asked this last summer to speak at a youth fireside for the East Los Angeles Stake. Subsequently, I was asked to give a workshop on an aspect of the gospel for our stake. I chose to speak on the same sermon I gave at the youth fireside: “Our Experiences Are Not For Us Alone: How the Atonement Enables Us to Rescue Others.” These were both well-received events and I had some requests to write the talk down more formally (which I am still doing). Though I am including footnotes, I realized that I was writing a sermon, and it was vastly different from papers and articles that I am used to writing. I began to realize more forcefully the powerful place of preaching in our church and in nearly all other churches and how so understudied it is within Mormonism, and yet how it used to be an art form in a bygone time.

3 important additional points:

1. At the core of an LDS homiletics would be witnessing/testimony-bearing. This is another subject that I haven’t seen much work on, though in philosophy I have seen it treated somewhere (have to search around). Witnessing was the framework within which Elder Holland’s sermon was preached. It is a key component of Mormon identity and preaching. Creative re-conceptualizations of witnessing would be very welcome, beyond the critique that testimonies shouldn’t be thankyoumonies.

2. Preaching seems to be essentially group or congregation-centric.One might argue that missionaries are preachers, that they preach the gospel. This might be generally true, but preaching is a specialized hermeneutic (even a particular type of aesthetic) that seeks a discourse within the framework of a social group. Early revelations in D&C call on missionaries to preach the gospel. Almost invariably, these early missionaries preached to groups, in churches, on street corners, etc. Most missionary work now days is centered on the individual or an individual family. They are more strictly teachers and message-bearers than preachers. Not that there is not overlap between preaching and teaching; there clearly is a lot of overlap. But I would not necessarily call what they do preaching in the traditional sense ( the missionary manual being called Preach My Gospel notwithstanding. And again, I don’t think there is any homiletical discussion in that manual). But I want to say that the act of preaching is of one addressing a group in a particular fashion, not necessarily an individual.

3. Preaching is a distinctly aesthetic activity; it has a particularly theatrical character. Preaching should be thought aesthetically as well as religiously. Kierkegaard and his distinctions between the aesthetic and the religious seem appropriate here. Might the event of preaching be found between and amongst these two realms of discourse? If so, how is the substance of preaching (theology, doctrine) reconceived?

I apparently took the long way to connect this to the ontology of Mormonism and Mormons, but the essential point is that Mormons are preachers. To be a Mormon is to be a preacher.  To consider Mormonism is to consider a community of preachers. It is crucial that we conceive of Mormons in this way because preaching is an activity that virtually all Mormons participate in. Because of minimal instruction how to preach each Mormon who preaches, aside from the substance of the sermon, essentially preaches himself or herself, as in, preaches his or her own person, his or her very life. Certainly Mormons mimic other Mormons in their sermonizing, but this is not any more so than all the other imitative acts we do as human beings. Our preaching, however boring, self-congratulatory, vain, uplifting, edifying, etc. is essentially our own.

In Part 2 (forthcoming)  I will outline how I see this as connected to a Mormon notion of truth, and how this relates to Mormonism’s unique task.

Starting Over, Continuing On

On April 11, it will be 2 years since I began this blog. I’ve only posted 7 times.  This was partly because life with 3 children, jobs, graduate studies and church responsibilities, not to mention coaching my son’s soccer team, publishing a book manuscript and working on other publications, has kept me plenty busy. But even more importantly, my personality has been an obstacle to blogging.  Whenever I felt I couldn’t do justice to a particular idea (i.e., fully flesh it out with all its implications, document sources, etc) I simply wouldn’t post it.  Consequently, I’ve hardly posted anything.  From now on, I plan on writing more frequently about my ideas, however roughshod and ill-formed.  Of course, not many follow this blog (understandably) so I may just be telling myself this. That would be fine, because I need to get these ideas down before they disappear (or get co-opted by someone else!). That will be all. As you were.

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.