Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy at Sunstone, 1987

The following are my notes on a 1987 panel discussion at Sunstone. The panel was discussing O. Kendall White's book, published that year by Signature Books, titled Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology. This book can be read online at the Signature website. If "Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy" sounds familiar, it might be because I recently reviewed a book by Neo-Orthodox theologian Robert Millet. Stephen Robinson is another well-known Mormon Neo-Orthodox name. The following discussion (an MP3 of which can now be download FREE on the Sunstone website, by the way) is utterly fascinating and, in my opinion, well worth a read. All of the panel members are deservedly eminent Mormon thinkers.

SL87313, Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy A New Theological Movement - All participants: Paul James Toscano, O Kendall White, Janice Merrill Allred, Kent E Robson - symposium: 1987 Salt Lake Symposium

White

• White originally used the term neo-orthodoxy not to refer to a return to early Mormon theology but to point to the similarity to Protestant Neo-Orthodoxy.
• Protestant Neo-Orthodoxy (hereafter “PNO”) countered optimism about human nature w/ a renewal of Calvinist depravity and salvation by grace.
• PNO was popular in Europe after WWI, caught on during the Great Depression in the USA a la Niebuhr’s Moral Man, Moral Society.
• The thrust of Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy (hereafter “MNO”) is the same as PNO; it emphasizes the absoluteness of God and the fallenness of man, salvation by grace.
• MNO contrasts w/ traditional Mormon finitism and belief in the perfectability of man; also its repudiation of original sin.
• Primary emphasis in traditional Mormonism is on merit as required for exaltation.
• Since writing his book, White has come to see MNO as a more authentic Mormon theology than he originally suggested; it is similar to 1830-1835 theology of Joseph Smith.
• He now sees MNO as a return to “the earliest” but doesn’t see that as true to JS’s legacy.

Janice

• Orthodoxy is not a useful term, was repudiated by JS. Better than Traditional Mormon Orthodoxy and MNO are the labels “humanistic Mormons” and “redemptive Mormonism”.
• Mormon theologians shouldn’t appeal to the authority of tradition in interpreting scripture.
• It’s arrogant to suppose Mo’s can learn nothing from Protestants.
• The Spirit rather than theology distinguishes Mormons from Protestants.
• That Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy is a crisis theology—a product of its environment—doesn’t make it less true. White’s theology would be environmental, as well.
• Reason is limited but also a useful tool.
• White worries about a degradation of the value of education if exaltation is by grace rather than increase of intelligence. This is absurd; Mormons are pragmatic people.
• If men are created, then an even better case could be made for man’s goodness. What White’s really worried about are the implications of contingency and obligation to worship that come with createdness.
• If humans are fundamentally good, why do they sin?
• Janice sees no reason to give up the absolutist language of the scriptures.
• White has rejected and ignored the scriptures, esp. the BoM, by appealing to authority of JS and his ideas in the King Follett Discourse.

Paul Toscano

• White has mapped this movement out in order to kill it by stereotyping it to death.
• This debate goes back to Pelagius and Augustine.
• Both men generalized from their own religious experience and came up with different ideas: Pelagius was optimistic about humanity, Augustine pessimistic.
• White’s view isn’t really traditional, just more popular.
• Neo-orthodox who use “omni” terminology of God don’t really mean it in a rigid, classical sense.
• Making grace a rainy-day theology misunderstands what grace is reacting to. Grace is a reaction to legalism. Legalism arises from Pelagianism, which separates the world into those who achieve and those who don’t. Totalitarianism is achievers trying to force achievement on the non-achievers. Pelagianism leads to arrogance and despair.
• MNO accepts the idea of rational limits on human achievement. Attempts to fuse the idea of achievement with the idea of grace.
• It is not possible to make yourself holy or to resurrect yourself. We need the power of God to empower us.
• “I’m not okay, you’re not okay” is a great relief.
• Toscano does not believe in an absolute God, finds the atonement contradictory to it.

Kent Robson

• There are significant differences between MNO and PNO.
• Anti-intellectual tendency in Mormonism since 1933 is much due to the influence of J. Reuben Clark.
• Other trends in the church include anti-Communism and anti-evolution. These three are discussed in White’s book as part of MNO.
• Mormons have a firmer and more entrenched concept of freedom than any other theology.
• Depravity may threaten the concept of freedom – if sin is inevitable, then are we really free to avoid it?
• Corruptibility is a better term than depravity, because it leaves open the possibility of avoiding sin.
• Mormon idea of foreordination can actually undermine freedom.
• Sin arises partly from struggling w/ different, complex moral situations.

White’s rebuttal

• White does not intend to suggest that tying MNO to crisis negates its truth claims.
• His book is not intended to promote one view over another. He is an agnostic humanist.
• He acknowledges that maybe Janice’s labels are better.
• MNO is authentic and useful, but also undermines education and affirmation of the world.

Paul’s response:

• Grace is required for freedom in that it empowers us to choose the holy, sets us free from determinism and depravity.
• Legalists break down freedom and build up a regimen or “exoskeleton” of rules.
• Everyone is born with grace that gives us freedom.
• It is being anti-legalistic that caused Christ to be crucified.
• Mormonism is legalistic; we’re told what to do in every aspect of our lives. We must obtain the metaphysic of grace and throw it in the face of the present ordeal.

Janice’s response:

• We can’t absolutize our commitment to freedom. We can’t choose freedom at the expense of other values.
• Depravity isn’t contradictory to freedom. We don’t always have freedom to choose just anything. We can only choose those things that are possible. So freedom is within limits.
• To say people can’t avoid sinning doesn’t mean we’re innately evil.
• There is no necessary connection b/w redemptive theology and anti-intellectualism, anti-evolutionism, etc.
• (White interjects that these are aspects of an earlier generation of MNO, not the present one.)

Kent:

• Augustine said there are three categories of people: posse peccare (“possible to sin”), posse non peccare (“possible to not sin”), and non posse peccare (“not possible to sin”).
• As soon as you say Christ gives us our freedom, you undermine the strength of the Mormon position, which gives us a fundamental affinity with God and inherent freedom.