The Creation of American Ignorance

January 27, 2012 By 3 Comments

Over on BCC, Steve P has posted a nice summary of an article in New Scientist which attributes the decline in scientific literacy in the US to three factors:  relativism in the academy, unserious journalism, and the illiteracy of Congress.

Amen to the third one!  In fact, amen to all of them!   However, speaking as someone who has taught both science and religion at the undergraduate level, there is at least one discipline in which student ignorance exceeds that of science:  religion.  Just sayin’ that when we’re passin’ round the cryin’ towels, I want one…  Not really.  I get paid for this, and I quite like it, except when I have to grade essay questions.

Anyway, as I prepping for my science and religion class next week, it occurred to me that some rejection of science arises specifically from religious venues and if Steve’s article mentioned that, he didn’t bring it up.  Unfortunately, some scientists must themselves accept some level of responsibility for the ease with which their results can be ignored or downplayed by those who do not wish to engage them in a meaningful manner.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Metaphysics, Scripture, Studying Religion 3 Comments

Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Philosophers

July 6, 2011 By 34 Comments

Earlier this year we explored some of the historical challenges for telling the story of “spirit birth” in Mormon theological history.  In this post, we will turn our attention to the philosophical challenges raised by “spirit birth.”  Again, here we are less concerned with tracing the teaching to Joseph Smith as we are examining the implications of spirit birth given our tradition.  Some of the most detailed treatment of the topic is given by Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt.  However, developing a coherent theology of spiritual birth is something Mormon theologians have not been interested in doing.  Blake Ostler, for example, says little about this doctrine in his multi-volume series Exploring Mormon Thought, other than to conclude it probably does not originate with Joseph Smith.  Indeed, others may feel little is to be gained from developing a theology of spirit birth.  However, for those who are interested in developing a coherent theology of spirit birth several challenges exist.

1.  Early Mormon thinkers believed that our spirits are fashioned from spiritual element or spiritual matter.  Thus, God has complete control when he configures each of our spirits.  Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt understood intelligence as an attribute of spiritual element.  Thus, given this metaphysics, God is the one who determines the intelligence of our spirits, and therefore the question arises as to how fair it is to judge us according to our intelligence when this is predetermined by God when he creates us.  Parley P. Pratt recognized this dilemma and argued that God does not create this intelligence.  The level of intelligence, rather, is a function of the particular element used to form our spirits, and element differs in its level of intelligence.  Pratt should be credited with acknowledging this dilemma even if his solution doesn’t quite solve the problem.  One can presume that God still has control over the particular element used in the organization of our spirits.  Isn’t there some consequence in how God creates our spirits?  Is there any significant difference between God creating our spirits from preexisting spiritual element and God creating our spirits out of nothing?  Doesn’t this lead to a kind of determinism? [Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, History, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Scripture, Speculation, Theology Tagged With: , , , , 34 Comments

Mormon Christology/ies?

June 21, 2011 By 8 Comments

The New Testament writings and other LDS Scriptural texts present a variety of Christologies (i.e., understandings about who Jesus was and the purpose of his life, teachings, and mission).  For instance, the Gospel of John presents Jesus as the pre-existent divine Word (logos) that was with the Father in the beginning and who created the world only to become flesh in it in order to redeem those who should believe on his name.  The Gospel of Matthew, however, presents Jesus as the inspired Law-Interpreter whose teachings reveal the true understanding of the Law of Moses and whose life and actions fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures.  In Matthew, Jesus is born of  virgin; he is half-human, half-god.  Likewise, Luke has an infancy narrative that attributes divine sonship to Jesus, but Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus as the greatest of the prophets ultimately destined for rejection. Interestingly, Luke does not seem to understand Jesus’ death as a substitutionary sacrifice for sins. Mark’s Gospel, on the other hand, like John’s, lacks an infancy narrative; yet, in contrast to the Gospel of John, there is no mystical reflection in this text regarding Jesus’ pre-existent divine state. Moreover, unlike Luke’s account, Mark does appear to understand Jesus’ death as substitutionary (Mark 10:45).  Suffice it to say, there are many other differences between the Gospels, and the other New Testament writings likewise portray Jesus’ life, teachings, and mission (if indeed they even directly touch on these issues) in different ways.  The Epistle to the Hebrews says that Jesus was made perfect through his sufferings (Heb 2:10) and became in every respect like humanity (Heb 2:17), and therefore he is able to sympathize with humanity precisely because he suffered temptation/testing in the same manner, although he never capitulated to sin (Heb 4:15) (Hebrews does not refer to a birth narrative, although it does appear to understand Jesus as pre-existent in some sense; see Heb 1:1–6).  (These statements, in turn, ask us to consider what exactly “sin” and “testing/temptation” is/are.)  Finally, D&C 93:1–17 states that Jesus divested himself of the pre-existent divine glory which he shared with the Father and dwelt on earth as fully human (confer also, e.g., Jn 1:1–18; Jn 17:1–21; Phil 2:6–11). He received not a fullness at first in mortality but continued moving from “grace to grace” until he received a fullness. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Atonement, Bible, Doctrine, Feminism, History, LDS Church History, Metaphysics, Mormon Culture, Mormon Studies, Personal Issues, Scripture, Speculation, Studying Religion, Theology, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , 8 Comments

The Blessings of an Unknown God

January 23, 2011 By 10 Comments

This post could be called anti-Areopagean, since in a reversal of the Acts 17 narrative, I write to those who inherited a supremely certain God and extol the virtues of a God unknown. I propose that agnostic theism actually results in a win-win situation, yielding rich rewards in return for handing over so-called certainty. I am not advocating that everyone adopt this philosophy, but I would like to lay out the advantages as I have experienced them.

This approach not only takes seriously the limitations of our knowledge, it could, if implemented widely, diminish religious conflict both interpersonal and national, and contribute to a healthier worldview overall. Agnosticism built around a theistic framework encourages resilient faith that easily assimilates new knowledge and allows for tolerance and appreciation for differing beliefs.

One of my goals in life is to model and champion religiosity that maximizes the benefits of spirituality while minimizing the harm that comes from most, if not all, forms of religion. I believe that an open agnostic theism that appreciates the value of spirituality allows one to enjoy a religious life while also becoming a better, more understanding and effective member of society. So in a Mormon context, I pray, enjoy Church, the scriptures, the temple, and the other details of religion, but my openness leads me to reject or at the very least complicate the idea of the “One and Only True Church” that I find divisive and spiritually stunting. (I am ok with a “most true” approach but that is a different post.) With a humility and caring that comes in part from my open agnosticism, I can engage with those around me without the automatic value judgments of traditional Mormonism kicking in. I very much respect those who understand God and religion more concretely, and I have had my own spiritual experiences that keep me in the category of believer. At the same time, I find an open, even agnostic approach to religion to be very beneficial and affirming.

My definition of the divine remains fluid. I live presupposing a caring and engaged superior Being, but I would classify that worldview somewhere between hope and belief. I am open to the idea that God represents some quantum connection between all things we do not understand, or a collective unconsciousness. Whatever created the world, whatever makes humans so different that we can have philosophical questions such as these, I call that God. God could be the name for natural laws that make choice and consciousness and love possible. God could be these attributes themselves–anything that increases consciousness, love, freedom, growth, peace, and joy–these are Divine. Perhaps we humans are the greatest gods within our grasp. I challenge you to find anyone who could not accept at least one of these definitions of “God”. I find this open characterization of the Divine useful.

My agnostic theism stems from several factors:

1) If there really is a supreme Creator of the Universe who interacts with all things, it is logical that He/She/They would be far beyond our comprehension.

2) Study of the religions of the world and human history demonstrates that humans conceptualize gods and the divine in their own image.

3) Mormon theology (and I would say theology in general) supports the idea that whatever God’s form or nature, God adapts Himself (I use the pronoun flexibly) to our understandings, expectations, and limitations (see 2 Ne. 31:3, Ether 12:39; D&C 29:33; 50:12; 88:46, which all imply that God speaks to us in a way we will understand more than the way “things really are”).

Throughout human history, groups have brandished the sword of certainty to compel and even destroy others. Though religion provides many answers that are satisfying on an emotional and spiritual level, theological ideas if taken to literally obstruct the increase of knowledge and compromise relationships. We all know what it is like to debate with the dogmatic and converse with the thoroughly convinced.

Mormonism enjoys a God defined to a striking degree. We not only know what God looks like, his job description (Moses 1:39); his family situation (including the elusive but tremendously beneficial theology of a Heavenly Mother); we know where he lives and where he comes from! I delight in the idea of a Heavenly Father and Mother to whom I can pray (well, the latter if I admit it only selectively) and with whom I can imagine a loving reunion in the afterlife. I love imagining embracing my Heavenly Parents when this life is done. Equally potent is the idea that humans and God differ only in degree, not nature. We are Gods in embryo, literally children of God and can become like Him/Her/Them. Since on a practical level religion is a symbolic system to conceptualize and interact with ourselves, each other, and the environment, I find these ideas powerful and productive. I would submit, however, that little is lost if we allow that such conceptions might not perfectly correspond to Absolute Reality, while simultaneously appreciating the benefit of such ideas in our lives.

Relaxing our cultural conditioning allows us to hear other ideas with more sympathetic ears and hearts. Paradoxically, agnosticism can lead to better understanding of truth. If we open our minds, we can be given new myths, corresponding more closely to Reality. If we are humble like children, ever seeking to learn how things are instead of projecting our desires of how we would like them to be, we can grow in light and knowledge and allow God to reveal truth and himself to us as it and he is, instead of constraining him to lovingly and patiently humor our prejudices until we are mature enough to surrender them. Again, this is win-win: if God and reality conform to our expectations, we will be pleased, but neither will we be shattered if life or learning lead us to doubt our conceptions.

A final and one of the greatest benefits of agnosticism would emerge from accepting the responsibility for our own divinity. As far as we can tell, humans are the most developed and influential beings of which we are aware. Our consciousness spreads across the planet and beyond. We can restore and even replace organs and limbs, even bring back the dead to a degree. We have the power to destroy or (hopefully) heal entire ecosystems.

Though belief in God can be heartening and helpful, it can be equally disempowering and destructive. We can wait around, shaking our hands at heaven, impatiently waiting for God to fix all our problems. I certainly don’t want political leaders to factor the Second Coming into environmental policy!

I suggest we accept this power and responsibility and turn the accusations of theodicy back on ourselves. Why does God allow so much suffering? Why doesn’t He DO something about it? Well, why do we? Why do WE allow so much suffering? Why do we perpetuate it? Why do we humans, godlike in our ability to do good and literally answer prayers, instead squander that potential by sacrificing others and even the planet upon the altars of apathy, greed, and selfishness?

With this conception and acceptance, the goals of religious and humanist align. We are either the most advanced beings around or share a special relationship with a God who is greater. In both cases, we should emulate and adopt the characteristics of Divinity and care for the people and world around us. Several of the world’s scriptures teach us that we are Gods*, His children, or at least servants. It is time for us to put aside differences in our symbolic conceptions and start acting like it.

*I was going to reference John 10:34 where Jesus says “ye are gods”, but that passage takes Psalm 82:1, 6-7 so radically out of context that I could not include it. This post is dedicated to TJ and the conversation that started it.

Filed Under: Metaphysics, Theology, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , 10 Comments

Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Historians

January 12, 2011 By 17 Comments

I appreciate the comments received in response to the Bushman and Paulsen post and found fascinating the diversity of views. I wanted to explore the reasons for preferring one aspect over another apart from historical or textual arguments, but I realize that perhaps it is impossible to bracket those issues from our emotional investment. Perhaps for some, they are one and the same.

In this post, I’d like to state some tentative conclusions on the development of “spirit birth” based upon the state of the literature as I see it today (aware that related studies are forthcoming that, for obvious reasons, I’m unable to take into account at this moment). This is a departure from my usual posts where I prefer to trace the journey of an idea over time (even the move from using the phrase “spiritual birth” to using the phrase “spirit birth” has a history worth exploring)1. Departing from that approach, I thought I would respond to the last set of comments by setting forth five tentative observations that might serve as a catalyst for new inquiries. I’ve subtitled the post “Challenges for Historians” on purpose, in an attempt to separate historical issues from philosophical ones. Perhaps “Challenges for Philosophers” will be taken up in a later post.

1. This seems to be a case where one doctrine (primeval spirit birth) has the effect of displacing another doctrine (becoming sons and daughters of God by covenant). While B. H. Roberts sought to reconcile Mormon discourse on the uncreated nature and begotten nature of man, it was not without repercussions.2 There is a tension in Mormon discourse between being sons of God and becoming sons of God. It is important, however, to credit Roberts with being aware of this problem (unique among his contemporaries). [Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, History, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Scripture, Theology Tagged With: , , , 17 Comments

Roberts and Descartes

January 10, 2011 By 19 Comments

The problem of how to label Mormon philosophical and theological views is a perennial one, but an issue that must be treated. Mormon scholars have debated the propriety of using terms like infinite, finite, monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, modalism, binitarianism, etc. The list goes on.

Scholarly communities advance and pool together their knowledge by using shared and common terms. Essentially we talk with one another using a common language. Disputes over labeling Mormonism are inevitable and will persist for the unforeseeable future. At worst, the very terms we use to talk with each other have built-in interpretations and often can skew more precise discourse. How accurate or useful is Cartesian in describing the dualism of B.H. Roberts or in Mormon thought generally? Are there dangers of confusion? What qualifications might be necessary?

In the realm of Mormon metaphysics, Sterling McMurrin makes the following observation:

Mormonism teaches a strict numerical dualism of the spirit and the body; through they are both material, they are two different entities. But the dualism is in number degree only and not in the fundamental quality or character of reality, a fact which distinguishes the Mormon position from the typical mind-body dualism that has typified Protestant thought, for instance, since Descartes. . . . It is important to recognize that the mind-body problem, the question of the nature of the soul or spirit and the body and the relation between them, has been a major metaphysical issue in occidental religious thought since the earliest Christian centuries. The Mormon treatment of this problem, which is radically unorthodox when judged by either Catholic or Protestant thought, nevertheless conforms to the general pattern of Christian theology, that the soul or spirit is immortal though the body is subject to death.1

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, History, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Theology Tagged With: , , , , , , 19 Comments

God, Self and Spiritual Birth: Two Perspectives

January 1, 2011 By 22 Comments

An issue that arises in the study of the Mormon thought is the origin of the teaching that our spirits are begotten by God in a literal sense in the premortal world. In this post, I wish to bracket the issue of whether this view can be properly attributed to Joseph Smith.  Instead, I’d like to explore our emotive responses to the various perspectives regarding our relationship with God. While arguments based on history or exegesis play an important role in these discussions, it is equally important to acknowledge that these ideas resonate with us at a deeply personal level in different ways.

Recently, I compared two responses, one from David L. Paulsen and the other from Richard Lyman Bushman. These are transcripts from audio so I encourage readers to listen to the original, if possible.  Both individuals, I believe, articulate well why a particular aspect holds significance for them. Rather than offer a conclusion, I will let each statement speak for itself.  What aspect of personal origins in Mormon thought resonates with you personally?

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Theology 22 Comments

The Formation of the Gods

June 18, 2009 By 16 Comments

I have suggested before in more oblique ways that the humanist account of the stable subject is at odds with Mormon doctrine of divinization, and in this way Mormonism has more in common with the psychoanalytic account of the formation of the subject and the Foucaultian/Althusserian account of subjectivation. I’d like to explore in brief more of this argument.
[Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, Metaphysics, Theology 16 Comments

King Benjamin Killed God

February 11, 2009 By 59 Comments

Jesus set up an impossible paradox when he explained that the two great commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor (though he was not the first to summarize the Law in such a way). The problem is that one simply cannot do both, as Jesus himself elsewhere noted that one cannot serve two masters.

King Benjamin saw the impossible tension between these two contradictory commandments and attempted to resolve it by collapsing them into one single ethical imperative. He said: “when ye are the in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mos 2:17). The attempt to equate the love of God and the love of neighbor as simply one ethical imperative elides the problem of having two competing duties. The problem (or promise, depending on your perspective) with such a position is that the duty to love God cannot possibly come into conflict with the duty to love one’s neighbor.
[Read more...]

Filed Under: Bible, Book of Mormon, Metaphysics, Theology 59 Comments

The Trinity, Two Formulations

November 20, 2008 By 55 Comments

Yesterday, I heard St. Augustine’s formulation of the Trinity. He gives it as a series of logical propositions as follows:
[Read more...]

Filed Under: Doctrine, Metaphysics, Theology 55 Comments