Jason Monson on the Possibility of a Mormon Pluralism

Here are my notes on "Mormonism and the Religious Other," presented by Jason Monson at the SMPT Conference on May 21, 2009.

Jason (a visitor all the way from Glasgow, Scotland) argued for the possibility of an LDS version of the pluralist philosophy of religions. Jason feels that the LDS believer can hold that Jesus mediates salvation and that the Book of Mormon and Church are true without excluding the possibility that God has given other mediators, revelations, and commandments to other peoples.

Jason endorsed some aspects of John Hick’s pluralism, like for example the shift from self to Reality-centeredness as the unifying paradigm for salvation among the religions. An interesting shift from Hick’s and other famous pluralists’ view, though, was that where most pluralists speak about Jesus as a mediator of God, Jason spoke of Jesus as a mediator of God’s salvation and glory. As I pointed out in question-and-answer, the shift highlights an interesting difference between the LDS view of God as anthropomorphic and the standard pluralist model of God as transcendent. This does not necessarily mean LDS theology and pluralism are irreconcilable, but it does mean a Mormon pluralism will look somewhat different than the standard pluralist formulations. Jason’s reformulation of this language actually might be worthwhile for other pluralists to adopt, as it is potentially more inclusive.

Jason’s comments on mediators were interesting. He suggested that other mediators might, like Jesus, have been in a pre-existent godhead-level unity with God. He stated that these mediators might differ from Jesus only in degree of perfection, not in nature. This statement made me a little uncomfortable because it sounded a bit more like inclusivism than pluralism, trying to affirm that Jesus is superior to other mediators in some perhaps inconsequential, but nevertheless real way.

One of the interesting points Jason made was that the LDS concept of eternal progression actually implies pluralism, because it means our present understanding cannot be perfect, and thus may be inferior to others. Jason also explored other LDS concepts that imply pluralism. He repeated, for example, John Hick’s argument from moral parity. According to the Bible, religions are to be judged by their fruits (i.e. the “fruits of the spirit” like gentleness, kindness, and self-control). Since there is little or no demonstrable difference between the levels of morality found in the world’s faiths, those faiths would seem to be more or less equally valid according to this biblical standard. Another powerful argument Jason employed asked, “do our bosoms not burn when reading the scriptures of other traditions and recognizing the truths they contain?” Ultimately Jason asserted that the true church includes all salvific paths, and that the LDS Church is just a part of that broader true church. He compared this to the church of the devil in 1 Nephi, which is generally interpreted in scholarly LDS circles as a reference not to the Roman Catholic Church specifically, but to all corrupt and apostate religious persons.

I know Jason was a little frustrated that most of the questions he was asked during question and answer were hostile (or at least challenging), especially since the process theologians who made similar arguments were much better-received. But I thought he did a great job and made some poignant points. His was certainly the most direct argument for pluralism that was made at the conference. I commend him for making it.

One question that I asked was, “since pluralism generally assumes divine transcendence, whereas Mormon theology is anthropomorphic, are the two really compatible?” Jason offered the great answer that the persons of the LDS godhead may simply be mediators of God, and not his final or ultimate representations.

Other questions asked of Jason focused mainly on the nature of truth. The askers seemed to hold the common misconception that pluralism is basically relativistic in its understanding of truth. I don’t think that’s the case at all (at least when we’re talking about the essentialist kind of pluralist philosophy defended by Jason and John Hick). Essentialist pluralism is somewhat relativistic with respect to religious experience, but it does not deny the existence of mutually-exclusive propositions and does not shy away from positive and/or negative truth-claims. Jason tried to explain this, but unfortunately it’s hard to grasp, and I don’t think the people who asked the questions really got what he was trying to say. I had the opportunity to talk with a few folks after the session to clarify this. It was a very constructive discussion.