Title: Faith, Philosophy, Scripture
Author: James E. Faulconer
Publisher: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
Genre: Philosophy/Theology
Year: 2010
Pages: 254
ISBN13: 9780842527781
Binding: Paperback

In the 1983 film “A Christmas Story,” little Ralphie wants nothing more than a Red Ryder carbine-action two hundred shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and “a thing which tells time.” Parents, teachers, even Santa Claus himself respond to his pleading with the same refrain: “You’ll shoot yer eye out!” LDS Church members who are interested in philosophy might encounter a similar refrain from other members who see philosophy as the Red Ryder of religion.

Reticent to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture, Mormon thinkers haven’t produced a wide offering of philosophical texts during the Church’s first 180 years. Orson and Parley Pratt’s early theological works are seldom read by contemporary church members. Today’s General Authorities aren’t likely to produce something like B.H. Roberts’s Seventy’s Course in Theology or John A. Widtsoe’s A Rational Theology. More recent LDS philosophers have been likelier to publish devotional style books like Truman Madsen’s Eternal Man or Dennis Rasmussen’s The Lord’s Question. Sterling McMurrin and Blake Ostler have produced a few academically-minded but seldom read volumes. David Paulsen, Erich Robert Paul and others have written various articles which make for great reading. The Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology holds annual conferences and publishes a journal, but few books on Mormonism have resulted thus far. BYU Professor of philosophy James E. Faulconer has undertaken to explain Mormonism’s apparent lack of philosophical texts by adding his own to the short stack. [Read more...]

Exodus. It’s a story as old as the scriptures that has been replayed in America many times. The Pilgrim’s journey from Great Britain is an exodus tale, as is the Mormon’s journey across the Great Plains. For African Americans, the civil rights movement was their exodus story. Segregation, disenfranchisement, and racism were their Egypt. Today we remember the Moses of the civil rights movement – Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 1963 King was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama for violating a city court injunction against (peacefully) demonstrating for civil rights. While he was jailed, his supporters marched toward the jail in what was a dramatic microcosm of the exodus journey. In the PBS series “God in America,” Andrew Young, aide to Martin Luther King, tells the story that police had blocked the way to the jail with dogs and fire trucks, using fire hoses and barking dogs to intimidate the people. In response, people got down and started praying, and something happened, not only to them, but to the police as well. The dogs stopped barking. And people started singing “I Want Jesus to Walk with Me,” and moving toward the police. Young saw the red fire trucks moved aside and heard one woman say “Great God Almighty done parted the red sea one more time.” God was on their side. King was released from solitary confinement after eight days, where he had written his now famous open letter, which reminds us all that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” [Read more...]

Not a lot has snagged my attention this week.

• John C. at ByCommonConsent offers up thoughts on the NYTimes article about Single Mormon Thirtysomething leaving chastity behind.

• Dan McClellan explains why elohim is a plural but treated like a singular.

• Mormons Apologetics and Discussion Board has decided to stop apologizing, becomes Mormon Dialogue board. New URL to match, http://mormondialogue.org [corrected]

• Darius Grey to speak on Martin Luther King Day

• Loyd asks (somewhat defiantly)- What would Eugene England Do?

• Spreading the anti-Word in Arizona.

I just came across an Ensign article on a topic I never expected to find in that magazine – the environment. Not our spiritual surroundings, but the actual great outdoors. Titled “Our Deteriorating Environment” and written by A. B. Morrison in 1971, the article describes in detail the pollution of our air, water, and land. While the information is a bit dated (lead pollution in the air has been wiped away with the use of unleaded gasoline, and Lake Erie has been largely cleaned up), many of the points Dr. Morrison makes are still pertinent.

Morrison makes the point that “in the last few years” opinions on environmental problems have become dangerously polarized. 40 years later, that’s certainly still true. Concern for the environment is often cast as an obsession of the political left, the cause of aging hippies like Al Gore. It’s not widely considered a to be a political issue with high moral stakes, like abortion or gay marriage. It’s certainly not a topic that I ever hear discussed in church. There are no save-the-environment themed Sacrament meetings, no Enrichment meetings on recycling, no requests from First Presidency to call your senator about CAFE standards.

But Morrison says that the problems of pollution and environmental deterioration are primarily moral and spiritual in nature. He wrote, “The prevalence of pollution stems from a lack of proper knowledge and understanding of the real purpose of life and of man’s place in the eternal plan provided by a loving Father in heaven.”

Specifically,

“Many of our environmental problems arise from the fact that our society has become obsessed with materialism. We must come to realize that there are higher motives for human existence than technological advancement and the acquisition of material gain.”

and

“The reason we are in trouble ecologically is because of our inability to see ourselves as a part of nature. We have not seen ourselves for what we are: part of the web of life and part of the biological community; a portion of an incredibly complex ecological system; and intimately a part of the total environment… We have behaved as though we have some sort of divinely provided right to despoil the physical world.”

and finally,

“In addition, too often we fail to see ourselves as part of a human continuum. We think only of our own generation as though it exists alone, with no obligations to the future and without any heritage from the past.”

Materialism, entitlement, and selfishness. All of which could find an antidote in charity, which is definitely a moral and spiritual concept. Morrison concludes by saying he believes the answers to all environmental problems and their underlying moral failings can be found in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. His reasons are the following:

1 – “The gospel teaches us that this world is our home, created for us under the direction of a loving Father in heaven, whose sons and daughters we are… As such, it must not be misused or looted, for we are stewards entrusted with its care.

2 – “The gospel teaches us there are purposes to life that transcend the acquisition of material things. [The purposes of mortal existence] are primarily spiritual and center on development of the divine potential for growth and advancement that we all have.

3 – “The gospel teaches us that we are part of the continuum of human life. We draw from the past and are obligated to give to the future. We have an obligation, therefore, to others yet unborn—an obligation to present to them a world with beauties that they too can enjoy.”

What do you think? Is the connection between our spirituality and the environment tenuous and not worthy of much attention, or is Morrison right? Should our stewardship for the environment receive more attention in our worship and classes at church? Why do you think the environment has become so politicized, and would it be possible to discuss our stewardship of it in church without it becoming a political argument?

I teach Relief Society and last week I taught a lesson on Richard G. Scott’s General Conference talk “The Transforming Power of Faith and Character.” The most meaningful part of the talk for me was a quotation from Hugh B. Brown:

“Wherever in life great spiritual values await man’s appropriation, only faith can appropriate them. Man cannot live without faith, because in life’s adventure the central problem is character-building—which is not a product of logic, but of faith in ideals and sacrificial devotion to them” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1969, 105).

That bit about our character being a product of our ideals really spoke to me. It must be true whether our ideals are good or bad. I recently re-read To Kill a Mockingbird, a book with great characters and great portrayals of character. It shows that ideals like narcissism and entitlement create characters like Bob Ewell, while ideals like the equality of humanity and the Golden Rule create Atticus Finch. The book’s characters, particularly Atticus, are products of their ideals. At this time of year many of us create resolutions for the New Year. What about examining our ideals? If our devotion to them determines our character, it’s worth finding out what they are, and re-devoting ourselves to our best ones.

I tried doing this, and found it pretty difficult. It was a lot harder to write down my ideals than to set a goal of say, losing weight. But here are a few ideals I came up with:

Freedom
The equality and intrinsic value of all human beings
Equal opportunity
The Golden Rule
The value of delayed gratification

Now, ideals don’t automatically translate into building character. There’s also that “sacrificial devotion to them” part. Indeed, when people speak of character-building experiences, they’re usually talking about something difficult and/or unpleasant, which sacrifice often is. Life is pretty good at giving us unsolicited opportunities for sacrificing in devotion to our ideals. But it’s also possible to aim at living up to one’s ideals without going through uninvited character-building experiences. That’s where goals come in. I may believe in equal opportunity, but what am I doing to help create it for my fellow men and women? I’m going to give that some thought, because I’m sure I could be doing something more than I currently am.

What are your ideals?